SECOND READING.

HL Deb 30 March 1876 vol 228 cc821-75

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a second reading to the Royal Titles Bill, I do so in the confident hope that it will meet with your unanimous approval. I am the more justified in this hope, because I see that as to the second reading no Notice of any Amendment has been placed on your Lordships' Paper. As this is the case, it appears to me that on an occasion like the present it would add grace to the proceeding if we could ensure unanimity, and I trust the Bill will be accepted by an unanimous vote. The Bill is by no means long. Its object is contained in one clause. The purport of the Bill is to enable Her Majesty by Proclamation under the Great Seal to assume a title in addition to those which she now bears, and to connect that title with Her Indian dominions. The Preamble contains this recital— And whereas by the Act for the better Government of India, passed in the Session of the twenty-first and twenty-second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter one hundred and six, it was enacted that the government of India, theretofore vested in the East India Company in trust for Her Majesty, should become vested in Her Majesty, and that India should thenceforth be governed by and in the name of Her Majesty, and it is expedient that there should be a recognition of the transfer of government so made by means of an addition to be made to the style and titles of Her Majesty. My Lords, you have now before you a statement from the Bill itself of all it purposes to do. During the progress of the measure in the other House of Parliament, it was urged that it would be for the convenience of the Legislature that the Government should state the title which they would advise Her Majesty to assume in the event of the passing of the Bill. In compliance with that request, it was stated by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons that in the event of the Bill passing Her Majesty would, on the advice of Her Ministers, assume the title of "Empress of India." Therefore, to put it shortly, practically the Bill is to enable Her Majesty to assume the title of Empress of India. At the time of the transfer of the government of India from the East India Company to Her Majesty, I believe there is no doubt whatever that the assumption of a title by Her Majesty in connection with her Indian dominions would have been acquiesced in and agreed to by Parliament and the country; but the state of India at the time did not permit of such a course being taken. While the embers of the Mutiny were still smouldering, and while considerable excitement in connection with that rebellion still existed throughout that vast continent, it would scarcely have been expedient to take the step now proposed. It was thought that the transfer should be effected in as quiet a manner as possible, in order that no possible reason could be afforded on our part for a continuance of that excitement. Since, then, however, nearly 20 years have passed, and the peace and prosperity which have prevailed throughout India generally during that period have taught the Princes, Chiefs, and people to appreciate the authority of Her Majesty. Those who have watched—and I think there are few people in this country who have not watched—the progress of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales through that Empire, must have observed with satisfaction that the loyalty and attachment towards Her Majesty and her family are not confined to her subjects in this country, but extend to her distant dominions in the East. Every one in this country is familiar with the urbanity and courtesy which have made His Royal Highness so popular in this country—and these have had the same effect in India. We find that from North to South, and from East to West, the Native Princes have vied with each other in the splendour of their receptions, therein manifesting their loyal feelings towards the Prince of Wales and, through him, towards Her Majesty. I am happy to think, therefore, that no more fitting opportunity than the present could be found for enabling Her Majesty to mark more distinctly her sovereignty of the Empire of India than this, and that no measure could more tend to cement the union between this country and that vast dominion, or to gratify the feelings of the Princes and Chiefs of that part of the world. I should have thought, moreover, that any measure such as this, which would at the same time gratify the people of India by bringing them into more direct communication with the Supreme Power that has existed over India since 1858, would have specially recommended itself to the Imperial Parliament. I believe that what this Bill will enable Her Majesty to do is of that character, and therefore I feel much confidence in asking for it the hearty approval of your Lordships. My Lords, the late Lord Palmerston, who, I imagine, no one in this House would think of speaking of in terms other than those of respect, was a man who might be regarded, as an authority on a subject of this kind. I will therefore take the liberty of quoting some remarks made by him in 1858 on the impression which the transfer was likely to make on the minds of the people of India. You may call this "sentiment" if you like, but your Lordships will see the importance which Lord Palmerston attached to it. He said— I believe there can be no doubt that, so far as the impression on the minds of the people of India is concerned, the name of the Sovereign of a great Empire like this must be far more respected, far more calculated to produce moral and political impressions, than the name of a Company of Merchants, however respectable and able they may be. We have to deal in that country with Princes, some ruling independently and some in a state of modified dependence upon us, and with feudal Chiefs proud of their position, cherishing traditionary recollections of a wide Empire, and of great Sovereigns to whom their ancestors owed allegiance."—[3 Hansard cxlviii. 1283.] My Lords, I think the relations between this country and India could hardly be expressed in happier or more concise terms than those. We must not in this case lose sight of the character of the people with whom we have to deal, nor of the feudatory position now occupied by the Native Princes of that people. In a Report on The Material Progress of India in 1868–9 I find this extract from a despatch written by Lord Canning— The last vestiges of the Royal House of Delhi, from which, for our own convenience, we have long been content to accept a vicarious authority, have been swept away. The last pretenders to the representation of the Peishwa has disappeared. The Crown of England stands forth the unquestioned ruler and paramount Power in all India, and is for the first time brought face to face with its feudatories. There is a reality in the Suzerainty of the Sovereign of England which has never existed before, and which is not only felt, but eagerly acknowledged by the Chiefs. I think that in that passage of Lord Caning's despatch a good reason may be found for doing what we now propose. The Report contains this comment on that despatch— Written at the conclusion of the great Mutiny, this despatch of Lord Canning's clearly explained the change which that momentous event had brought about, and resolved the question of the position of the feudatory Chiefs of India, who had hitherto acknowledged the nominal sovereignty of the Emperor of the Moguls or of the Mahratta Peishwa. Their allegiance was, in fact, thenceforth transferred to the Queen of England; and the same despatch decreed, what Hindoo law had never absolutely ordained, that adoption to a Raj should always be recognized by the paramount Power subject to the two conditions of loyalty to the Crown and fidelity to all engagement to the British Government. The sunnud or patent confirming this decree was issued on March 11,1862, and a similar patent was given to Mahomedan Princes. To 153 feudatories is this right of adoption guaranteed. Leaving out Mysore, which, during the Maharajah's minority, is administered by the British Government, and Berar, which is administered for the Nizam, these nobles govern a population and area larger than those of France and Belgium. Their troops far outnumber our Sepoy army, their ordnance is equal in number to ours, their wealth is enormous, and their revenues are personal. From 44 millions of people, covering 579,277 square miles, they draw a revenue of 12¼ millions sterling every year, irrespective of the very large incomes of the nobles who are in their turn feudatory to them. The twelve wealthiest Princes alone enjoy an annual revenue of seven millions sterling, derived from 26½ millions of people. Of these twelve, the Nizam of Hyderabad has an income of £2,150,000, and the Maharajah Scindiah one of £1,110,910, and remainder drawing incomes varying from £240,000 to £600,000. Those, my Lords, are the Princes over whom, since 1858, Her Majesty has exercised paramount sway. It was for these, and for other reasons that Her Majesty's Government thought this a fitting and opportune time for Her Majesty to bring herself into more direct connection with Her vast Empire. If, then, it is fitting that Her Majesty should assume a title in connection with India, it behoves us to consider what is the title which would properly indicate the paramount position of Her Majesty in relation with those Princes. I suppose I need not consider the suggestions as to "Supreme Ruler" and "Lady Paramount" which have emanated from several persons. It appears to me that the choice lies between "Queen" and "Empress;" I think it must be narrowed to that. Assuming that there is to be a distinctive title given to Her Majesty in connection with her sovereignty of India, which would—Queen or Empress—be the more applicable to the position? My Lords, I venture to think that the title of Empress implies more directly the sovereignty which Her Majesty exercises over the Native Chiefs, and I do not think the title of Queen does imply that kind of sovereignty. I think that the title of Empress does correctly indicate the connection between Her Majesty as the Supreme Head, and the various Native Princes who make up in the aggregate our Indian Empire; and that to describe her as Queen would not convey to the Oriental mind the position she holds towards them. It may be said, "What's in a name?" In reply I urge that when you are dealing with such people and Princes as those of India, there is a great deal in a name, and the name of Empress does convey to their minds the position which Her Majesty justly and legitimately holds in India more than any other title she could assume. But it has been said that the title "Empress" is not only un-English, but is a title repugnant to the feelings of the people of England. As to its being repugnant to the feelings of the country, there are modes of arriving at those feelings, with which modes your Lordships are familiar. There are two to which we may always have recourse. If there be in question any matter which engages the attention of the country, or of the two Houses of Parliament, or even of one branch of the Legislature, we are accustomed to find Petitions on that question presented to this and the other House of Parliament. But it is a very remarkable fact that until lately no Petitions for or against the proposal of the Government have been presented to either House of Parliament. Now, having regard to the importance of the Bill, that circumstance is not a little remarkable. I believe that up to a certain time no Petition whatever was presented on the subject, although it was alluded to in the Speech from the Throne at the opening of Parliament. I am aware that at a certain stage of the progress of the Bill in the other House of Parliament a Petition against the measure was presented in that House; but that Petition was not numerously signed. It emanated from some reverend gentleman, who considered that the country, or he himself, would be aggrieved if the Queen took the new title. Whether other Petitions were presented afterwards to the other House I do not know, but if so they must have been very few;and I must say that on a question like this it has scarcely ever happened that so few Petitions have been presented. It is perfectly true that this evening Petitions on the subject have been presented to your Lordships' House by my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), and that there was such a bundle of them that he was unable, with all his well-known assiduity, to get through the task of reading the names of the places from which they came.

EARL GRANVILLE

My remark about not being able to read some of the Petitions which had reached me applied not to those which I presented, but to an immense bundle which I did not present because I had not had time to verify them, and I deferred the presentation to a future stage of the Bill.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

I will not stop to examine where the Petitions came from; but I say that up to this time the feeling of the public had not manifested itself by petitioning Parliament against the Bill. The noble Earl, no doubt, had Petitions sent to him, and I think I can show there is as little doubt they were sent to my noble Friend in consequence of his occupying the position which he so gracefully fills in this House inconnection with his Party. But the origin of these petitions is perfectly clear, and proves the opposition to be an afterthought. From a paper which I hold in my hand, it appears that an organization for getting up Petitions against this Bill has been seton foot, and what that organization is I shall be able to show to your Lordships. I hold in my hand a letter in the form of a Circular. It is headed "National Reform Union." Then there follow the names of the officials of this Union—"John Slagg, Chairman of Executive; Samuel Watts, Treasurer; and James Southern, Honorary Secretary." The Circular is in these terms— 41, King Street, Manchester, March 27, 1876. —so that it must suddenly have occurred to the National Reform Union that up to this time it had been very supine in this matter, and had never thought of petitioning. Suddenly, however, the Union roused itself—may I say for the purpose of inundating your Lordships with Petitions? Dear Sir,—A strong effort is being made here against the Royal Titles Bill. I herewith enclose forms of Petitions, which please have signed by as many inhabitants of your town as possible, and forward the Petition to the Lords, to Lord Granville, House of Lords, London, S.W.,"— These I suppose are the Petitions which the noble Lord has not as yet had the opportunity of reading, but with which I suppose he will make himself familiar before long.— on or before Wednesday next, the 29th inst., in order that it may be presented before the debate on the second reading of the Bill, which is to take place on Thursday next; and the Petition to the Commons should be forwarded either to Mr. Fawcett or to the Member of your borough or county, with a letter announcing the sending of the same, on or before Thursday, the 30th inst., as Mr. Fawcett's Resolution will be made on Friday, the 31st inst. Petitions must be written (not printed) bold and clear,"— My noble Friend will not have any difficulty in reading them when he can find leisure to do so.— and some signatures must be made on the same sheet on which the Petition is written. Any additional sheets containing signatures must be fastened with gum to the Petition sheet so as to make one long continuous sheet.—Yours faithfully, ARTHUR G. SYMONS, Secretary. Your Lordships will mark the postscript— N.B.—The sending of the Petition in time is of more importance than the securing of a large number of signatures. This, my Lords, is the direction given for the getting up of Petitions which your Lordships will be asked to regard as indicative of the feeling of the country—"Do not mind the number of signatures; only get Petitions." Still, we certainly have not yet received a clear intimation of the feeling of the country through the number of Petitions that have been presented. Then there is another way of ascertaining the feeling of the country—seeing what the Press says. Now, I maintain that the feeling of the Press before this question degenerated into one of Party warfare—and to this it unfortunately has degenerated—was in favour of the course which the Government had proposed to Her Majesty to adopt. That was the opinion of leading journals. It was even stated by a leading journal that, in its opinion, Empress was the only title which the Queen could adopt. In a leading journal of February 9 I find this passage— But whatever may have been the best course in the past, there can be no doubt that the adoption of an Imperial title is a peculiarly happy way of signalizing the Indian journey of the Prince, by whom it is some day to be worn. In another journal of the same date were these remarks— Although it will but formally express an existing fact to denote the British Sovereign as 'Empress of Hindostan,' the quick-witted people of the Orient will thoroughly appreciate the significance of the measure, following as it does upon the pleasant visit of tie Heir Apparent. That is exactly what we say. We say that this is a fitting opportunity for the assumption by Her Majesty of a title which will indicate her position in relation to the Princes and people of India. I do not mean to lay any stress on what I may call the historic arguments which have been made use of in the other House of Parliament and in the Press. I will only use that part of the case to show that the Imperial idea was not always repugnant to British feelings, because we have it from the time of Henry VIII. down to the beginning of the present century. If such were the feelings it is curious that Queen Elizabeth should have been proclaimed Empress in Westminster Hall at her coronation; and that our poets in alluding to her and Queen Anne should have applied the title of Empress to both. That this should have been is an argument against those who say that that title is repugnant to English feelings—I do not put it forward as any strong argument, but merely to show that the country was used to it in times past. But I should prefer to rest the case on Indian grounds—as it should rest—and to show that in our own times the title of Empress has been recognized in India as the one which naturally belonged to Her Majesty. In a letter dated August 18, 1873, from his Excellency the Viceroy and Governor General of India to his Highness Atalik Ghazee Yakoob Khan, Ruler of Yarkund, there is this passage— Mr. Forsyth is also the bearer of a Royal letter from Her Majesty the Queen of England and Empress of Hindostan, in reply to your Highness's letter of September, 1871. Now, my Lords, I think it need scarcely be observed that the Viceroy would not have given Her Majesty the title of Empress of Hindostan if he did not believe it was the one which rightly belonged to her. Next I think I can show that the title is one which will be gratifying to the people of India. I fear to trespass on your Lordships' time; but I know you will feel with, me that the subject is of such importance that I ought to lay it before the House as clearly as I can. In 1869 there was an Exhibition at Kurrachee, and it was decided to strike silver and bronze medals in connection with that Exhibition. A reference was made to Sir William Merewether, the Commissioner of Scinde, suggesting that his bust should be placed on one side of the medals, and, in reply, he wrote a letter, a copy of which I hold in my hand. It is in these terms— To W. A. Ingle, Esq., Honorary Secretary Kurrachee Christmas Fair and Exhibition. Sir,—While fully appreciating and most highly esteeming the personal honour to myself contained in the propositions carried at the meeting of the General Committee, Kurrachee Fair and Exhibition, I would at the same time beg to suggest for the consideration of the gentlemen forming that Committee that the designs savour rather too much of the immediate locality and have not sufficient reference to the scope we hope the Exhibition may command. I would, if I may be allowed, venture to suggest as we look to bring people from all parts with a view to the extension of knowledge and commerce under the protection of the Government of our gracious Sovereign, that the device on the one side should be a bust of Her Majesty, while on the other there might be a small group of a Sindee, Afghan, Punjaubee, and Indian, standing round a few bales of merchandise, with inscription 'Kurrachee Exhibition, 1869.' I have, &c, "W. L. MEREWETHER., Col. The views suggested by Sir William Merewether were adopted. Silver and bronze medals were struck, and I hold in my hand one of the latter. On one side of it I read this inscription—"Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Empress of India." My Lords, we have advised Her Majesty, in the event of this Bill receiving the sanction of Parliament, to assume the title of Empress of India. We protest against the supposition that in giving this advice we have done anything that can in any way impair the ancient and Royal dignity of the Crown. Her Majesty reigns over an united Kingdom and an united People—a People scattered, it is true, over all parts of the earth, but united in one bond of loyalty to the Throne and of affection for the land of their fathers. The case of India is, as I have endeavoured to show, an exceptional one; and no dignity which Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to assume in connection with her Indian dominions, can add to, or diminish, the lustre of that august title, by which her ancestors have been known through many centuries of glory, and by which she herself now reigns in the hearts and affections of a loyal and united People.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2^a."—(The Lord President.)

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

My Lords, before I touch on the general question raised by the Bill now before your Lordships, I wish to sweep away some of the errors which have arisen in connection with it in this and the other House of Parliament. I desire, my Lords, to raise the veil of Asiatic mystery which has been drawn over this proposition, and to exhibit the proposition as it appears when unadorned by any such contrivance. I am first going to read what was announced in the Queen's Speech at the beginning of this Session. It was this— At the time that the direct Government of my Indian Empire was transferred to the Crown, no formal addition was made to the style and titles of the Sovereign. I have deemed the present a fitting opportunity for supplying this omission, and a Bill upon the subject will be presented to you. Now, my Lords, I contend that in 1858 there was no omission. At that time this question of title was deliberately and carefully considered, and at that time Her Majesty the Queen had one of the best councillors any Sovereign ever had in the person of Prince Albert, who knew well what was due to the dignity of the Crown and to the Constitution of this country. What was the Proclamation issued at that time, after it had been seen by Prince Albert? It was one of a very different character from that which will go forth if this Bill passes. It was— Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Colonies and Dependencies thereof in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia, Queen. This appears to me to be a grand title. It takes within its scope the whole of Her Majesty's Dominions, and it is in accordance with the ancient Constitution of this country. But instead of that grand title we are to have what to this country is a new-fangled title, and a title which, if it means anything at all, means military power. The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) says that it has been accorded to the Sovereigns of this country from the time of Elizabeth down. Yes—but it has been used as an epithet and not as a Parliamentary title. I should like to call attention to what happened a few months ago. A great question arose about the word "Reverend." The clergy were put in a fluster by it, the Nonconformists were indignant, it agitated the whole ecclesiastical world, from the Bishop down to the sexton—they did not know what to do about this title "Reverend." Well, this went on till the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with his powerful understanding, cleared the matter up by deciding judicially that "Reverend" is an epithet, and not a title. So, if we deal with the word "Empress" simply as an epithet, there will not be much harm done; but it will be a serious thing were we to alter the Royal style and title. We are now told that the Imperial title will gratify the people of India; but only the other night the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India explained to us that the people of India were politically dumb. Whom will it gratify, then? Will it gratify the Princes of India? Will it gratify them to be told that they are to have a title for the Sovereign which the people of England repudiate, and which the Ministers dare not apply to England? It seems we are not to have "Imperial" here in any form. According to the Prime Minister, we are not to have even Imperial Highnesses in England; but we are to send the title to India—it will do for the Indians—and the people and Princes of India are to be subjected to a yoke which in England we will not bear. That is not very complimentary to Her Majesty's subjects in India. But the Prime Minister says that the hordes which interposed between another Power and India have been subdued, and he proposed to defend India—by what? By making the Queen an Empress. Well, we have all heard in eloquent language of the "cheap defence of nations," but I never heard of such a cheap defence as that. The Prime Minister is a man of brilliant genius and of Oriental imagination. He has become intoxicated by the atmosphere of the Court, and, desirous of paying to Her Majesty a great compliment, he thought nothing would do so well as to make her an Empress. He has literary tastes of a high order, but he is not the man to despise nursery rhymes when they are appropriate; and we can imagine him walking in with this offer of an Imperial Crown and saying—"Is not this a dainty dish to set before the Queen?" It has not, however, a flavour which the British people approve, and they seem inclined to stick to the old honoured title of Queen—a title which we in this House are especially bound to respect. It is an honoured hereditary title, and if there be one Estate of the Realm more especially bound to regard it than another, it is the hereditary Chamber. The new title will have an autocratic flavour about it; but considering how ancient is that which has been borne by the Sovereigns of this country, if any Party in the State ought to be foremost to maintain it, that Party is the Conservative Party. People have, however, been led away from the real interests of the case. We all knew that the Prime Minister is given to vagaries of a wild and poetical character; but we had a right to expect that the common sense of noble Lords on the front bench opposite and the sound understanding of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would have saved us from this title. We cannot have Lord Derby's opinion about it. He is away in a foreign Court, where, I suppose, he is practising his unaccustomed lips to pronounce the new title of "Empress." But have the Government considered where, when the Queen shall have been honoured with this name of Empress, she will come in on the list? How will the assumption of this title be regarded by the other Courts of Europe? What rank in the order of precedence is Her Majesty to be allowed, as Empress? Is she to come in at the bottom of the Imperial list as having only just come into her title? The noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) says that the opposition to this proposal arises from Party feeling. My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that it is not from any Party feeling that I raise my voice in opposition to this Bill. I desire to display no Party feeling. I visit my displeasure upon both Parties, for that matter; but I say this question has nothing to do with Party. I oppose this measure because I consider it contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. I dare say very soon we shall see the Imperial title in illuminations and transparencies; we shall see "His Imperial Highness" at every turning in the streets. But there is a re-action in political as there is in physical life, and I think it would be wiser to adhere to the Constitution. Quieta non movere is a sound maxim. Any change of the Royal title ought to be carefully considered, and it ought not to be, as was one time said of a proposal of Mr. Gladstone's, "a fantastic innovation." What is this addi- tion to the Royal title but a fantastic innovation? Who has asked for it? Who wants it? It is not wanted in this country. Is it wanted in India? Had the noble Marquess gone to the Prime Minister and said—"There is a great danger coming on India; there is a great enemy in the North coming down. Create Her Majesty an Empress and all will be right?" No, the noble Marquess did nothing of that kind. But what I want to know from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is, How are we to limit this title? This title is to be taken under Act of Parliament, but is to be assumed by Proclamation. What will your Proclamation avail? Will a Proclamation override an Act of Parliament? How, then, will you stop the misuse of the title? We are told its use will be confined to India—that it will only be used in India, and that it will not be used in England. Why, every sycophant will hasten to use the title—we should some how or other in the Act of Parliament provide that the title shall not be used in England. I do not believe its use can be so limited, and I can only say this—that one Peer at least shall raise his voice against a measure which cannot, in my opinion, have any other effect than the humiliation of the Crown.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

said, a good deal of invective had been poured forth in respect of this Bill; but if he were to take any part in the discussion he should endeavour to treat the subject exclusively and purely from an Indian standpoint—believing, as he did, that it was chiefly a matter of Indian interest. At the same time, he must protest in anticipation against the imputation of being treated as a flatterer or sycophant if he advocated, in a modified degree, the policy adopted by Her Majesty's Government on this occasion. He protested against the epithets which the noble Duke who had just spoken (the Duke of Somerset) had cast at those who advocated a course different from that of which he himself approved—in doing so the noble Duke made a cheap exhibition of independence. He held it to be highly desirable as a matter of policy, that Her Majesty should assume a distinct and specific title marking her connection with her Indian subjects. First, because the assumption of that title would be a manifestation and a proof in the most conspicuous terms to the Princes and People of India that their destinies were indissolubly and entirely united with the Crown and Empire of England. Had the Princes and People of India any doubt upon that subject? He would not affirm that there was a positive doubt in their minds that they were to remain subject to the dominion of the British Crown; but, nevertheless, he did affirm that it was not at all a matter of indifference that their convictions on that subject should be confirmed and consolidated by the measure now proposed. The noble Duke had referred to what had been said by the Prime Minister in "another place" in reference to the approach of Russia. He was not going to defend the Prime Minister—it might not have been perfectly discreet in the Prime Minister in his position to have alluded to Russia exactly in the terms in which he did it—he did not say that those terms were the most appropriate that could have been chosen—but he maintained that there was a real and substantial foundation for the views which the Prime Minister had expressed. The adoption of the title of Empress with reference to India would tend to consolidate and strengthen the authority of the Indian Government, and to manifest to foreign Governments that the Government of England was determined for ever to maintain inviolable its rights with reference to India. He would indicate some influences which had a disturbing effect on the minds of the people of India. There was a school of writers and thinkers in this country—he might describe them as Pure Economists—which had always contended against maintaining foreign colonies and dependencies excepting on grounds of material advantage, and which laid stress on the responsibilities and risks that were attached to their possession; and these views were studied by the educated classes in India, where there were persons who thought that if the possession of India were proved to be not commercially advantageous the English might not be very reluctant to be delivered from the burden. There was another school in this country—the Philanthropic School—whose great object was to encourage the Native element to regard the English Government almost as if they were merely political pedagogues—the guide, goroo, and friend—of India. There were people being educated in India at that moment who really did believe, or who shortly would be induced to believe, that when our benevolent and protective function was expended the people of England would be prepared to take up their hats and, offering their congratulations, would politely bow themselves out and leave the people of India to take care of themselves. There was another influence which tended to shake the minds of the people of India in their belief as to the stability of our rule, and that was the attitude which our Government assumed during a course of years in its policy towards Russia and other foreign countries. He ventured to say that both in foreign countries and in India the impression had been gaining of late years that this country was not prepared to resume those risks and to make those sacrifices which it had done in the past to preserve the dignity of the Crown and the entirety of the Empire. He should never forget the painful impression with which he once heard the expression of a Russian diplomatist and statesman upon that subject. In conversation with him upon certain political eventualities which seemed to be impending, he (Lord Napier and Ettrick) said that in such eventualities the resistance of the English Government might be expected. The Russian statesman replied in deprecation and surprise—"Resistance, my Lord, is a word which has no longer a place in the political vocabulary of England." If such an impression existed in the mind of a Russian statesman, might it not exist in the minds of other persons in Europe much less well-informed, and in a still greater degree in the minds of the ill-informed and easily-deluded classes of our Indian fellow-subjects, who were at the mercy of a profligate and factious Press, which reproduced all the exaggerations and illusions of the English and Continental Press. He believed that the assumption of the proposed title by the Queen would have a salutary and confirmatory effect in persuading our Indian fellow-subjects that their lot was cast in for ever with the fortunes of England, that they would never be dissociated from us under any circumstances; that we possessed India not only for the good of India, but for the greatness, and glory, and pride of Great Britain; and that they would always be associated with a wise, beneficent, and liberal Government. He considered that the adoption of this title was desirable, because it would be agreeable and pleasant to the Princes of India. There were in India ancient and powerful Princes; but those who were powerful were not ancient, and those that were ancient were not powerful—there was no superiority, no predominance claimed by one over the rest—nor was there the least shadow of jealousy, antagonism, or apprehension as regards this country. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had said that the proper opportunity for the adoption of this title might have occurred immediately after the Mutiny, at the time of the proclamation of Lord Canning, but that it had been deliberately rejected. It was easy to understand that with reference to the Native Powers of India it was not considered desirable to adopt the title at that moment; but he thought it might be very desirable and legitimate to assume it now after a lapse of 15 or 16 years of a perfectly peaceful, popular, and salutary government in India. Whilst it might have caused alarm at that moment, it could now be adopted without exciting the least apprehension. There never was a moment when that title could so well have been assumed as the present. Of the three groups of native political element and power in India, the first were, the Sikhs, who were formerly powerful, but who had now no representative or head of any importance. The second was the Hindoos—there were certain powerful Hindoo Chiefs who were jealous of each other, but showed no jealousy of the English Crown—on the contrary, they had just given proof of their devotion and allegiance to Her Majesty. Lastly, there was the Nizam of Hyderabad, who was the head of the Mussulmans, but he was an infant, who would, no doubt, be trained in European ideas. There was at the present time no Native Prince who was likely to be in the slighestdegree offended by the adoption of the new title, and Native apprehensions were all the less likely to be aroused that the most recent acts of the English Government in India had been of the most moderate, most just, and most re-assuring character. If any Native Prince had misgivings as to the intentions of the English Government he had only to think on the course we had taken with reference to the territory of Mysore, which was freely, willingly, and liberally restored, or to reflect on our treatment of the State of Baroda, in order to be completely re-assured. Or, if apprehensions still remained in the minds of any of the Native Princes, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) would have many opportunities of showing by his acts that he intended to pursue a liberal and disinterested policy. If the adoption of the title would be agreeable to the Native Princes, it would decidedly be acceptable to their subjects. The principles of English learning, the English language, and the principles of English government and justice were now being disseminated in the Native States, and it would be a satisfaction to the subjects of those States to know that Her Majesty would assume a title which would, be expressive of her general interest in all the inhabitants of India, and they would derive from it an impression that they were more likely even than they were before to be protected against the injustices tyrannies and of Native Governments. If agreeable to the subjects of Native States he ventured to think this new title would be equally agreeable to Her Majesty's own subjects in India. It would be gratifying to their pride and their sense of importance; it would cause them to feel that they were directly associated with the British Crown, and were placed more nearly upon an equality with Englishmen. These were, of course, personal reflections; but having had an opportunity of asking those who were familiar with the Indian people, he had never heard a doubt expressed that an addition to the title of Her Majesty would be acceptable. Only yesterday a missionary who had laboured in that country for upwards of 30 years—Dr. Law—told him that he had not the slightest doubt that wherever there was anybody in Bengal capable of appreciating the subject at all they would be flattered, gratified, and pleased by the notion that Her Majesty had brought her supreme dignity into more immediate contact with them. Admitting, then, the desirability of adopting a new title, the question arose, What should that title be? Was it to be an English title? It would be the greatest error in the world to suppose that the Queen could bear a Native title and that it would be acceptable. The Queen was an Englishwoman and a Christian, and she must have in India an English and Christian title. There were two ways in which it would be popularly conveyed to the Indian mind—on the coinage and in public documents and proclamations. Now, it would be incongruous to associate on the coinage an English Sovereign with a Mussulman or Hindoo superscription. It would of course be necessary to translate public documents and proclamations for the sake of the people to whom they were addressed. It would be for Orientalists to determine what the translation should be, but the genuine and authentic title must be an English title always. Much had been said about the title "Padishah." That was the title borne by the Mussulman Emperors of Delhi; and could not properly be applied to a Christian Sovereign. The Emperors of Delhi employed it because it was a Mussulman title which they had brought with them from Central Asia to their new dominions. They would not adopt a title from their subjects; nor could Her Majesty. Nor did "Padishah" express the supreme and general authority which belonged to the Queen; and, indeed, it had been rendered impossible for the Queen to adopt it, because 30 or 40 years ago the King of Oude was entitled "Padishah." not only with our assent, but the title was actually bestowed upon him by the English Government. The new title should be one which as absolutely as possible delineated and marked the complex nature of Her Majesty's authority in India. This would at once absolutely reduce them to the adoption of the title of Empress. The title of King or Queen was used in common parlance to express direct sovereignty over immediate subjects. Was the Queen the Sovereign of the Mussulman Nizam of Hyderabad in the same sense as she was our Sovereign or the Sovereign of her subjects in India? The tie in that case was soslender, so indirect, so evanescent as hardly to be seen. There were relations between the subjects of Native States and Her Majesty, but they were not expressed by the word "Queen." It was necessary to adopt some other title. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) said it was no compliment to the people of India that a title which we in this country despised, rejected, and repudiated should be cast to them. The fact was exactly the contrary; for if they were to call the Sovereign of India "Queen," it might excite some degree of suspicion or doubt in the minds of Native Princes or subjects. They might say, "It is the same word; does it mean the same thing?" But they gave not a less honourable but a different title in order to satisfy and please them, and to avoid offering to them the slightest indignity or offence. It had been said by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) that practically it was a choice between the title of Queen and that of Empress. He (Lord Napier and Ettrick) did not think that that was so. He believed it would come to that, but he did not think it need. There was an expression long familiar to, and respected by, the people of India, and it had been the recognized designation of the British Government since the Proclamation, and that was—"Paramount Power." That word exactly represented the relations between Her Majesty and the Princes and People of India. He thought Her Majesty might have been advised, in deference to our relations towards India, to take the title of "Paramount Sovereign" in India. He thought that would have been a just and accurate title; that it would have become familiar and acceptable to the people of India, and have created no jealousy whatever. But if any title resembling "Paramount Sovereign"—and he thought that was the best—was impossible—if it had been deliberately rejected by Her Majesty or Her Majesty's Government—then the only title which remained to them was that of Empress. He could not say he thought the title of Empress was altogether appropriate or accurate; it meant either simple sovereignty, as in the case of Brazil or Russia, or else headship of a national confederacy, as in Germany. It was taken generally to imply that the German Emperor was the chief of a national confederation of independent sovereigns and municipalities, and that there was a bond of national feeling, national union, and also a form of national religion. It could not be said that, in this sense, the Queen was really Empress of India, for there was no tie of a common nationality between her and the Princes and people of India; but he must admit that the title was a great deal more accurate than that of Queen. It conveyed to our minds in its popular sense the notion of complex sovereignty exercised over sovereigns of several States in India. He could not doubt that it was in some degree already familiar to our fellow-subjects in India, and would be received by them without astonishment, without jealousy, and without any apprehension whatever. With regard to the painful impression which the adoption of this title had seemed to create in England—as to which he might not perhaps be thought a competent judge—he held a very strong conviction that whatever painful impression might be produced at this moment would be of a transitory character. He would not yield to any Member of that House in attachment and veneration for the ancient and simple title of Queen of the United Kingdom, and if he entertained the slightest apprehension that that title was ever to be postponed to that of Emperor or Empress, or any other title in the world, he would protest against the adoption of the additional title as strongly as any one in their Lordships' House. But he could not seriously entertain the apprehension that the Sovereign of this country would ever assume and use a title which was repugnant to the sentiments and convictions of Her people—repugnant to the desires and the resolutions which it was competent for both Houses of Parliament to embody and express at any moment. And as to the slight difficulty that might occur in reference to the use of the adjective or epithet "Imperial," he should leave that to be shaped according to the convenience of public correspondence and according to the sentiments and wishes of the country, which would be insensibly imparted to the Government and the Sovereign, and would be respected by Her Majesty in the same way in which she had uniformly respected the wishes of her people.

EARL GREY

said, his noble Friend the President of the Council, in moving the Bill, had attributed much of the opposition made to it to Party feeling, but he thought he, at all events, would be acquitted of being influenced by Party motives in the remarks which he was about to make, for it had now been many years since he had taken part in any Party movement. More than that, he would not shrink from declaring that he earnestly desired that the present Government should remain in office, because he looked with apprehension to what might be the consequences of the return of their Predecessors to power. So far from having any Party object in view in the few observations which he was going to make before the Bill was read the second time, it was his main purpose in those observations to endeavour, if possible, to prevent any Party division in that House upon the subject. When the subject was first brought under the notice of Parliament in the speech from the Throne, the country was left in ignorance of what the new title was to be. His noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) said that when the Prime Minister announced that the new title of Her Majesty would be that of Empress of India, that proposal was not at first objected to; and his noble Friend seemed to attribute the gradual growth of public sentiment against that proposal since that time to the efforts of politicians. But he (Earl Grey) did not think that was a correct view of the change of feeling which had undoubtedly taken place on the subject, or of the objection now generally felt to the proposed change in Her Majesty's title. He was not surprised at the gradual growth of that public sentiment, for it took some time for a proposal of that kind to be thoroughly understood by the public. An idea seemed to have dawned upon the public by degrees that, by adding the title of Empress to Her Majesty's present title, the old historic title of "Queen of England" would be overshadowed, and that by her assumption of the title of Empress, that of Queen would to a certain degree be driven into oblivion. That seemed to be the impression of the people, and he believed it was a right impression. If it were true, as the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Napier and Ettrick) had said, that the title of "Emperor" implied some one having rule over other Kings, and that the title implied, therefore, something higher than the title of Queen—if that was true, we all knew that a higher title ordinarily had precedence of a lower title which a person possessed; and so it seemed to have come before the minds of the people of England that if Her Majesty was to become Empress of India the old historic title of Queen of England would be overshadowed by that of Empress. That was felt to be a very strong objection to the adoption of the title of Empress; and it was an objection which he fully shared. It was also felt that though the title of Emperor, no doubt, in former times was a high and dignified title, which carried with it great power over the minds of men, that had now ceased to be true. Since the historic Empire of Germany, which was supposed to be the successor and representative of the old Roman Empire, fell, that title had been used in such, a manner as to deprive it, in a great measure, of the grandeur which it formerly possessed. Wecould not forget that it was a title which had been assumed not only by the holders of great but short-lived power, but by low adventurers and even uncivilized men. We knew how that title had been degraded in men's minds by such circumstances, and there was a strong objection to the Queen of England giving up her old historic title to take up one which had been assumed by the Emperor Soulouque. Hence he believed that the title of Emperor had ceased to have much hold on the respect and deference of the world. But even if this were otherwise, if it were true that, in any just sense of the word, a higher dignity attached to the title of Empress than to the time-honoured title of Queen—still, it appeared to him that the increase of dignity for Her Majesty would be dearly bought at the price that must be paid for it in the dissatisfaction it would create. As far as he could judge, there prevailed at this moment among the people of England a very general sentiment against the adoption of the title of Empress by Her Majesty. The objections that were felt to the intended change of title might perhaps be unreasonable—those who entertained them might be prejudiced and mistaken, but admitting that it might be so, still, he asked, was it wise to shock even aprejudice that was honestly felt upon such a subject? Was it wise to wound the feelings of many of Her Majesty's most faithful and loyal subjects by choosing a title to which they had manifested so strong a disinclination? He had always felt that if ever a change of the style and title of Her Majesty should be made, it should be made only with the general concurrence of the whole country. His noble Friend (the Duke of Richmond) in bringing forward this measure stated most truly that upon a question of this kind it was of the utmost importance that, as far as possible, there should be unanimity. He entirely agreed with him. Even if he (Earl Grey) approved the title of Empress, he should disapprove of its assumption in the face of the feeling existing against it. This was one of those matters in which it was inexpedient to make any change in what existed, unless with the unanimous, or almost unanimous, assent of Parliament and of the nation. But this Bill came before them, having been opposed in the other House by a large minority; and what was more, it was notorious that many of the Members composing the majorities by which it was supported, gave reluctant votes in its favour, only because they waived their objections to a measure they disapproved, to save from defeat a Ministry they desired to support, and of which they considered the continuance for the good of the country. In society, and wherever men could speak, freely on the subject, no matter what were their political views, nine men out of ten expressed their regret that this question was ever raised, and that a change of title was about to be made. That that was a matter of fact there could be little doubt; and the Prime Minister, in order, if possible, to allay the feeling against this Bill, stated to the other House that if it should pass, the title of Empress of India would be used only in India, except in this country in official documents relating to India. But after a lengthened discussion it turned out that this promise was a very illusory one indeed. Her Majesty could not have two titles—one in one place and one in another. If she was to be Empress anywhere, she would be Empress everywhere. He would most respectfully, but most earnestly, press upon Her Majesty's Government to consider whether it would be conducive to the honour and dignity of the Crown that they should, in spite of the offence which would be given to a large part of the people, persevere in forcing on a change in Her Majesty's style and title. To put an end to all contest and difficulty on the subject, it was not necessary that the Bill should be abandoned, he believed it would not even be necessary to amend it. He trusted that there would be no opposition to the second reading. But when the Bill reached its next stage, unless Her Majesty's Government thought fit to make some concession on this subject, he feared that it would be impossible to prevent a division on the Bill. The noble Earl near him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had given Notice of his intention to move a Resolution on going into Committee on the Bill, and unless that Motion were rendered unnecessary by the action of Her Majesty's Government, many of their Lordships would, like himself, feel it to be their painful duty to support it. To do so would be, as he said, a painful duty, because he was persuaded that no Member of their Lordships' House could give without pain a vote against a proposal of this sort brought forward by the Servants of the Crown; but still their duty, however painful it might be, must be done. He would, therefore, on this occasion appeal to Her Majesty's Government to save noble Lords from being driven to adopt this course. It was in their power to do so, without humiliating themselves or abandoning their measure. All that was necessary to avoid the inconvenience to which he had alluded was that before the next stage of the Bill was proceeded with, Her Majesty's Government should assure the House that, in the event of the Bill passing, they would advise Her Majesty to make a somewhat different use of the power which would be conferred upon her from that which was originally proposed, and that they would advise Her Majesty to adopt some other title than that of Empress of India. There would be no difficulty whatever in finding a title which would answer every object it was thought desirable to secure. According to the statement in the Queen's Speech, and from what had since been said, it appeared that the main purpose and object of this Bill was, by altering Her Majesty's style and title, to make a distinct declaration of her intention to maintain her sovereignty in India. Was it impossible to effect that object without the use of the word "Empress?" The noble Lord who had immediately preceded him (Lord Napier and Ettrick) had expressed his preference for the title of "Paramount Sovereign;" and there were many other equally unobjectionable titles that might easily be found that would fully carry out the intention of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. Sir Charles Trevelyan, in a letter which recently appeared in The Times, stated that it was long ago suggested that Her Majesty's title should be "Victoria, of the British Isles, of the Colonies, and of India, Queen;" and he saw no objection to the adoption of that style, which he regarded as an improvement upon Her Majesty's present title—which was, to say the least, a very awkward one. It was, therefore, quite in the power of Her Majesty's Ministers to propose a title which, while carrying out their object, would meet with no objection whatever. If, therefore, before this Bill got into Committee, Her Majesty's Ministers would announce to the House that they had advised Her Majesty, and that Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to accept their advice, that, in the event of this Bill passing she would take some different title from that of Empress, an end would be put to all difficulty on the subject. He entreated Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider this suggestion, for, if they went on—if they persevered in pressing forward this measure, without making any alteration in the scheme as it was brought forward, there would, he was afraid, be much agitation and disquiet in reference to it. Should they not take that course, there would be another, and perhaps an angry, debate and division in that House; and it was evident from the Notices which had been given that the contest would be renewed in the other House. He did not know how that contest might end; but he thought that there were significant symptoms that if it were to be carried on it would lead to great difficulty and inconvenience; and, however it might terminate, it would be an unmixed and most serious evil. From that evil and from those inconveniences it was within the power of Her Majesty's Government to relieve them by adopting the suggestion he had thrown out—and he did not see what objection could be urged against it, or what public inconvenience could arise from Her Majesty's Government making the concession which he had ventured to indicate. By advising Her Majesty to adopt any other title than that of Empress they would be doing that which would most conduce to Her Majesty's honour and dignity as well as to her comfort. Such a concession would be by no means humiliating to Her Majesty's Government to make; and even if they were to admit that they had in the first instance made a mistake on this subject, no one would deem them deserving of the slightest censure if they were to retrace their steps and to make a frank and graceful concession to the wishes of the people. Such a course would be most honourable and creditable on their part. He would not trouble the House further than to add that he did not wish to press Her Majesty's Government to express any opinion on his suggestion that night; on the contrary, he most earnestly pressed them to abstain from committing themselves either way with regard to it that evening. There was no hurry for determining this question, and it would be most unwise to press this Bill forward too hastily. He, therefore, pointed out to Her Majesty's Government the propriety of deferring their decision on the matter until Monday night, and the necessity there was for carefully considering the opinions which had been expressed with regard to this Bill. He trusted they would keep in view their own reputation as a Government and the honour and comfort of their Royal Mistress, and would not hastily reject the proposal he had ventured to make.

LORD LAWRENCE

said, he believed that whatever title the Queen might assume, it would be received in India with pleasure by the great mass of the people. He did not, however, think it would have any real and permanent influence on their minds, or be any additional source of power to our Indian Empire. As regarded the English in India—the men who governed the country from one end to the other—they would be as ready as ever to defend the honour of the Queen and die in the defence of her rights. But, with great deference to Her Majesty, he could not help thinking that the grace, and honour, and influence which her name would bear in India would be somewhat diminished if Her Majesty were to assume a title which it was understood the people of England did not unanimously accept. If the new title of Her Majesty was to influence the minds and ideas of the Natives of India, to denote her sovereignty in India, it would be a great matter, in his mind, that it should be also accepted by the English people. He did not say that the addition of the title of Empress to Her Majesty's present title would be received with the least dissatisfaction; on the contrary, he thought it would be received with every satisfaction by the influential people of India. It appeared to him to be a matter of great doubt whether the English term should be used in India, or an equivalent in the language of the country. On the one hand, the title of "Queen" was great, and had been honoured by all Englishmen for centuries, and was connected with all the honours, glories, and successes of this country. But, on the other hand, the title would have no such force—no such significance in India. There it would carry no such power as in this country, and therefore it appeared to him it would be wiser to adopt for India the term which, after careful consideration, the Governor General in Council should judge to be the best translation of the title, and the most suggestive and acceptable to the country. No man who had mixed much in the Native society of India but would remember that with the exception of the well-educated Natives, English terms were hardly understood, and the Sovereign would be recognized, not by an English word, but by some native equivalent—the word Empress would not be pronounced as by the English, nor would it carry with it in their eyes the significance it possessed in this country. He did not think it was a matter of great importance whether the title chosen for India was of Mahomedan or Hindoo origin; but the title, as expressed in English, should have its equivalent in the Native language It had no doubt been stated that the word Empress had been used in a letter to the Ruler of Yarkund; but the word Empress could not really have been used—it must have been some equivalent in one of the Native languages, for otherwise the Ruler of Yarkund would not have understood it. He thought it would be a great matter that the Government at Home should carry with them the authority of public feeling in this country, and that would render whatever title they might adopt acceptable to all classes of the people of India. He did not deny that this was a most suitable time for making such a change in Her Majesty's title as would denote her sovereignty in India. All the Princes and Chiefs were unanimous in their good will, sympathy, and gratitude for the courtesy with which they had been received by the Prince of Wales, and if anything of this kind was to be done, this was the most suitable and appropriate time. Hitherto the name of King and Queen had been in some degree mythical to the people of India—they had hitherto seen little or nothing of the Royal Family, but no doubt the presence of the Heir to the Throne would have a beneficial effect on the minds of the Princes and Chiefs in India, and would contribute a certain strength and value to our power.

LORD WAVENEY

desired, while the remarks of the noble Lord who preceded him were fresh in the recollection of their Lordships, to refer to the equivalent for the title "Queen," in one of the principal languages employed in India. The Arabic was the language of the sacred Book of the Mahomedan population, and the word "Queen" rendered by "Malaka" occurred in the Koran cap. 27, v. 29. It was also found as an attribute of the Supreme Being in the form of "King Maleke" in the opening chapter, v. 1. There could therefore be no difficulty in finding an equivalent which would be intelligible to the great body of the governing race in India. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would pay attention to the expressed wishes of the country in reference to this subject. It was true that the opinion had not been made known through the medium of public meetings to any considerable extent; but it had been fully expressed through the Press, alike in the metropolis and in the principal centres of industry throughout the country. The question had been discussed with perfect loyalty in the news papers; but the tone of the discussion had made it clear that there existed a strong and growing hostility to the adoption of the title of Empress. He was far from saying that they undervalued the loyalty to the Crown of those who were Her Majesty's subjects through the power of the Crown; but there were other feelings and influences which, in their own loyalty, clustered around the throne of the Sovereign to whose kingdom they gavestrength. If it were desirable to draw one instance from history he would remind their Lordships of the jealousy of the people when they found the Prince who was called the Great Deliverer surrounded by Dutch guards. In their loyalty to a Sovereign who was a great lover of liberty they saw no need of foreign intervention. With respect to the present Bill, he asked how it was that from India itself, from its Princes, no demand had been made for such a step as was contemplated? How did it come to pass that that body of distinguished statesmen and warriors, the British subjects in India who were collected in the most exalted Order of the Star of India, had not found it necessary to say they thought that this additional brilliancy should be attached to the Crown? In "another place" it had been intimated that the title of Empress was to be assumed by the Sovereign as a counterpoise to the title of that Sovereign whose outposts it was said were not far removed from the frontiers of the Empire of India; but he doubted very much whether the Tartar tribes through whom and over whom the Russian advance was being made, knew anything of the name of Emperor. He believed, on the contrary, that the name by which the Emperor of Russia was known to them was that of White Khan, and that the title of Czar was more familiar among them than was that of Emperor.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

If the Bill before the House were calculated to add to the lustre of the Crown or to the stability of Her Majesty's dominion, certainly no one would say anything in opposition to it. But bearing in mind the frivolous arguments by which it has been supported, some of which have been repeated this evening, it is impossible to approve of it, or to dissociate its sole authorship from the Prime Minister who habitually interchanges romance and statesmanship. The recent dealings with regard to the Suez Canal shares show a community of ideas with those to be found in Tancred; and here is another example. In his speech on the Address in February, 1873, Mr. Disraeli said— Sir, we do not look with any jealousy on the natural development of the Russian Empire. Russia is an inland country of immense size with a very sparse population producing illimitable supplies of human food. …. It follows from such a natural combination of affairs that Russia must force her way to those waters which can alone allow her to communicate with the rest of the world ….and the policy of Russia as it has proceeded now for two centuries, so far as it has been a systematic attempt to obtain this access to the waters of the world—is a natural and inevitable policy, and one which I believe cannot and ought not to be successfully resisted."—[3 Hansard, ccxiv. 82.] In his novel Coningsby, Mr. Disraeli wrote— In return for this, he (Mr. Rigby) extracted much information from the Grand Duke on Russian plans and projects, materials for a slashing article against the Russophobia that he was preparing, and in which he was to prove that Muscovite aggression was an English interest, and entirely explained by the want of a sea-coast, which drove the Czar, for the pure purposes of commerce to the Baltic and the Euxine. So that Mr. Disraeli gravely utters in a speech on the Address opinions which he has before turned into ridicule by putting them into the mouth of one of his characters representing Mr. Wilson Croker. What idea is suggested by Mr. Disraeli's statement that the title of Empress is to hold back the Russian advance to India? The most natural one is that of Mr. Disraeli standing before the Khyber Pass preparing with a mop labelled Imperial, like Mrs. Partington, to stop the successive waves of Uzbegs and Kirghiz, Turkmans, and Afghans, surging through the Khyber Pass. I am convinced that all faithful subjects of the Queen should oppose this measure which is fraught with danger to the Crown in England, and calculated to impair the stability of Her Majesty's dominions beyond the seas. Now that it has pleased the Legislature to establish a system of education under which the children of this country are taught under great difficulties to fear God and to honour the King, it is very dangerous to do anything which uproots tradition, and obliterates custom and national feelings. To touch national custom and traditions is as dangerous as to touch religion. Spain and Portugal have always held the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It is engraved upon old monuments and fountains. Yet, when this dogma was recently promulgated I remember Spaniards who imagined it must be something new, and who refused to accept it, saying they would believe what their fathers had believed, and nothing more. In like manner, those who have felt affection and respect for the title of Queen, may hesitate to transfer those feelings to the title of Empress. With regard to India, the supporters of this Bill blow hot and cold: those who say that it will strengthen the British Government, must mean that it will alter the existing relations between England and the Princes of India; in that case, they intend what would be an usurpation. The others, who say that it is only a compliment to Indian Princes, have not proved that it would be so re- garded; and as the existing relations between England and these Princes are as satisfactory as could be expected, any alteration of the present state of things is unnecessary. The advocates of a new title for India are also at variance with one another; since some argue upon the English title, others upon its Indian translation. If the English title be considered, the bulk of the people of India will draw no distinction between Queen and Empress. Those who know English and European history will suspect a title associated with conquerors like Napoleon, and despots like the Russian Emperors, and knowing that the Kings of France had for vassals the Dukes of Normandy, of Burgundy, and others, will suspect a sinister intention in a change which will appear unnecessary. With regard to the Indian translation of the title, there appears to be much misapprehension. There is no distinction in the East, such as there is in Europe, between the Royal and Imperial styles. The oldest and most historical Crown in Asia, or in the world—the Crown of the Kaianians, or of Persia—is a Royal Crown. Shah in Shah, King of Kings, does not mean a King over Kings, but a King amongst Kings, o' Basileûs the King, par excellence. Padishah is a favourite word with the Turkish speaking peoples, rather than a title of higher rank, and everywhere east of Turkey the Sultan is called the Sultan of Roum. The Sultan of Constantinople is addressed as Zat i Shahaniniz; your Royal person, not your Imperial person. Neither is there any ground for saying that Melik and Melikah, King and Queen, used hitherto in Government documents in India, are inferior styles, when it is remembered that "El Melik el Mutaal," the "Exalted King," is one of the designations of the Deity: as your Lordships may know from the English version of the Psalms. The country has been informed by a Minister that Empress is translated Shahinshah Zil i Subhanahu;but the right hon. Gentleman did not translate it. This title means the King of Kings, the Shadow of Him to whom Praise belongs. This title expresses the idea of the Divine right of Kings over subjects owing them natural allegiance; and it imposes very great responsibilities on the Sovereign receiving the title. These responsibilities consist in many things outside the range of duties of constitutional Sovereigns, and are exemplified by another title of Eastern kings, Alem Penah, asylum of the world;such are receiving petitions, inquiring into them, acting upon them and occasionally reversing the acts of Ministers and officials. And in view of this measure, I should have been glad to have heard that Her Majesty's Ministers had thought of advising the issue of an amnesty for the events of 1857, on the occasion of the recent visit of His Royal Highness to India, the good effects of which visit it would be impossible to overrate. There must be few left to profit by it, but its influence would have been felt in the obliteration of the memories of that struggle. If this title, or any English equivalent such as Empress be assumed by the Queen, it will cause very great disappointment, heartburning, and discontent, if the Princes of India do not receive at the same time the right of appeal to Her Majesty's Privy Council, unfettered by, and without the previous sanction of the Secretary of State. In the East they do not say as we do, "the King can do no wrong," but they say, "the King will do no wrong," for it is assumed that the king is beneficent, and will always do justice when petitioned, and that wrong is done by his Ministers and officials. And this is often true as concerns the Princes of India, for the Sovereign of England can only have friendly feelings towards them, whilst personal feelings or pique might easily arise between a Secretary of State and an Indian Prince, when correspondence has passed between the Prince and the Resident, who perhapsmay have repeated words and arguments that have come from the Indian office, and which the Secretary of State may not like to see controverted. I have endeavoured to show the arguments against this Bill, which are founded on reason, but there are other objections to it which should not be lost sight of, though they are founded only on sentiment, or even on prejudice. One of these is, that throughout the course of history such assumption of titles from foreign possessions has been ill-omened and ephemeral. Camoens inveighed against similar pretentions on the part of the Portuguese, and said— Court you a peril dark, an unknown fate, That fame may flatter and exalt your pride, Proclaiming you with liberal pomp of words, Of Ethiop, Ind, Arabia, Persia, Lords? But a few years after Camoens had died, the King and all the first men of Portugal were cut off with their army in Marocco. Portugal then fell into forty years captivity under Spain, and the Portuguese Asiatic Empire became a thing of the past. It will be remembered also that Julius Cæsar, amongst other Imperial projects, had contemplated transferring the seat of government from Rome to Troy; and that this project was revived in the time of Augustus; but the Ministers of Augustus withdrew it before the discontent of the people, and the warnings of Horace, who, in one of his odes pointed out to the Prime Minister Mæcenas that the just man, tenacious of his design, yielded neither to the clamour of the mob, nor to the frowns of a tyrant; but that reason dictated the withdrawal of a project which was ill-omened, and contrary to the compact with Juno, or to usage and tradition. It will be remembered how much excitement and panic was produced by the Pope having conferred some ecclesiastical titles on the Catholic Bishops in this country, and though nobody was injured by them, and their status not materially altered, it was not till long after that popular feeling on that matter subsided. In this case popular feeling will be more moved, because the interest in the Royal Family is general, and everything relating to it is prominently brought before the people; whilst the use of the ecclesiastical titles was limited to certain localities, and except during the first agitation not brought under the notice of the mass of the people of this country. It is therefore undesirable for the Government to press this measure at the risk of irritating the public feeling by the too probable use in this country of a title to which it is averse; and by showing the people of England that their feelings are to be sacrificed to the imaginary wishes of the people of India, as though this country were an appendage of India, and apparently in order to enable the Hindoos of young Bengal to say— Cœlo tonantem credidimus Jovem Regnare, præsens Divus habebitur Augustus, adjectis Britannis Imperio. If this Bill passes, it is probable that the country will soon possess what the noble Marquess the Secretary for India has described to your Lordships as his beau ideal of the Government of Eng- land—namely, a Liberal Government with a strong Conservative Opposition.

EARL GRANVILLE

The noble Duke who opened this debate to night (the Duke of Richmond) thought it judicious in proposing a measure of this importance, and which, he said, it was desirable should be passed with unanimity, to throw out the imputation that those who opposed it were actuated merely by Party spirit. That observation made me feel that I ought to rise late in the debate inorder not to give, from my official position in this House, a confirmation to that observation; and I must say I am greatly surprised at what has passed since that observation was made. For what has occurred? Why, since that, three Peers of this House, standing as high in their character for independence as in their great position—I mean Earl Grey, the noble Duke behind me (the Duke of Somerset), and the late Governor General, Lord Lawrence—have spoken. The noble Duke took a strong view of the measure, and put a particular question to the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) on which certainly we ought to be satisfied before we go to a second reading. Yet, notwithstanding these Peers have spoken, not one Member of the Government—not one on that side of the House—has thought it desirable to attempt an answer to the speeches which have been made. I really hardly remember tactics similar to those of to-night having been resorted to by the Government of Her Majesty when a Bill of so much importance has been before the House. I presume the reason is, they thought of this Bill the least said the better. My Lords, I am sure it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, but I will say this—that, either with regard to Party spirit or excitement in the country, the course they have pursued has been exactly that most calculated to afford cause for the excitement which has taken place. A system has been in use for nearly 36 years, which has been attended with good results. I am not sure that I should not have felt some embarrassment in alluding to it if the matter had not been publicly written in a book which will always command great interest and attention. In The Early Years of the Prince Consort, written by General Grey, whom we all know as Private Secretary to the Prince Consort, and afterwards to the Queen, at page 276, the writer gives an account of some remarkable Parliamentary passages connected with the dignity of the Queen and her Family. He describes in 1840 Sir Robert Peel and the Conservative Party supporting Colonel Sibthorpe's Motion to reduce the annual grant to be made to the Prince Consort by two-fifths—that is to say by £20,000—and upon that he remarks— It is probable that the mortification which the refusal of the proposed vote was calculated to occasion the Queen might have been avoided by proper communication beforehand between Lord Melbourne and the leaders of the Opposition, such as took place in after years. A few pages further on he describes an incident when the question of the Prince's precedency was introduced by Lord Melbourne, and abandoned, owing to the opposition of the Duke of Wellington; afterwards the latter gave way, and a settlement was arrived at, but in a different way from that first proposed, and with the consent of both parties in the State. I believe during the 36 years mentioned this has been the habitual course which has been adopted by Her Majesty's Government. I can answer for it on two different occasions. On one Mr. Gladstone communicated with Mr. Disraeli, and on another occasion I communicated with the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack in regard to a question concerning which I thought there might be some contest, and I am bound to say that if the noble and learned Lord had been one of my own Colleagues he could not have given me more cordially his opinion and his advice. The system has this advantage—Either acquiescence is expressed, which smooths the passage of the measure through the House, or a modification is agreed to, or if a refusal is made, it leaves it open to the Government to consider whether, in face of strong opposition, it is tanti to introduce the question at all. I think it would be an inconvenient and awkward course if the representatives of the two Parties were to communicate on questions of general political interest. I remember an anecdote told me by Earl Russell, who, having written a letter to Sir Robert Peel asking him, I think, what course he intended to take in reference to the nomination to the Speaker ship, got a curt answer from Sir Robert Peel. Lord John Russell sent the letter to Lord Melbourne without observation, and Lord Melborne returned it with the note—"Peel is a very bad horse to go up to in stable." I do not complain of the course which has now been adopted; but I think that as much advantage may occasionally be derived from the Government communicating with the Opposition in respect to the introduction of a particular measure affecting the comfort or dignity of the Sovereign, it is a pity that that course was not adopted in the present instance, either before the Queen's Speech, or before the introduction of the Bill in Parliament. I am unwilling to refer to what has passed in "another place" on this subject, but I must say the course which the Government have there pursued has not been one calculated to recommend itself to Parliament or to the country. On the first reading of the Bill a statement was made from which the House of Commons concluded that only a half confidence was placed in them; and when the question was again referred to the same reticence was observed. It was not till the second reading that the Prime Minister informed the House and the country what the real pith of the Bill was. I hadly think it necessary to allude to this except to say that a difficult duty has been imposed on the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—namely, that of explaining how it was constitutional to give information respecting the Bill on the second reading and unconstitutional to give it on the first. If it be alleged it was owing to the permission of the Sovereign not having been obtained till the second reading, I can only say it shows a most wonderful want of care and caution not to have obtained Her Majesty's permission in the first instance. The Prime Minister stated that there was not the slightest intention to substitute this new title of Empress for the supreme and superior title of Queen, and that it was to be localized in India. To the discussion which occurred I need not here allude. On the third reading the Prime Minister made a very startling statement. He ended his speech by saying that Russia having made great advances in Central Asia was now within a few days' journey of our Indian frontier. Now I deny that they have reached within a few days' journey of our possessions in India; and I also deny that, however creditable may be the feats performed by them, that the Russian armies have effected there anything superior to what the English have accomplished in India. I admit, however, that great advances have been made in India by Russia, and I am the last man who can say that some of those advances have not been made after very solemn assurances and specious explanations to the contrary. But the Prime Minister went on to say that he was not of the school of alarmists with regard to the advances of Russia, and that he thought there was ample room in Asia for the destinies of that great country and our own. Well, if that is so, why should anything be done? But if there was a danger, it appears to me there would be two courses to be pursued—either to remain perfectly quiescent and rely on the strength of our position in India and the formidable barrier between us, or—what I believe would be wrong, unwise, impolitic, and contrary to sound Indian opinion—make a counter advance of some sort or another. But the only suggestion the Prime Minister made was that we should give the Queen an imitation of the title of the Russian Emperor, and by that means check him in his advance. I hardly know how to speak of this matter. On the first night of the Address, the only persons who alluded to this subject in this House, except the Mover and Seconder of the Address, were, I believe, myself and Lord Derby who followed. With regard to myself, I quoted from the Speech the sentence referring to the Indian title, and said I inferred from it that Her Majesty thought it desirable to move in the matter from considerations of the effect of such a movement on the Native population in connection with the visit of the Prince of Wales to India. Knowing there had been some informal mooting of the question—and that it had been to some extent favoured by Lord Derby's Government—I guessed what the Bill was to be, and I certainly expected that when it was brought before Parliament we should be overwhelmed with documentary and other evidence in proof of the yearnings of India for the change. I believe I then went on to say—what I do not find reported completely in the daily papers or in the edition of Hansard not revised by me—that in regard to the dignity of Her Majesty herself there was, in my opinion, no greater title on earth—none which appealed more forcibly to the imagination—than that which our most gracious Queen already possessed. Well, what was the answer of Lord Derby, one of whose great merits, I may observe in passing, is clearness and precision of language? He said— The proposed addition to the style and titles of the Sovereign will mark more clearly the relation which she holds to the Native Princes of India, but it raises no controverted question—it makes no change in the relations between governors and governed—it involves no doubtful point of constitutional law—and it is not, therefore, a proposal likely to lead to difference of opinion."—[3 Hansard, ccxxvii. 34.] I have no doubt that was an accurate description of the intentions of the Government at the time. Well, unless Lord Derby meant designedly to deceive this House—a supposition which I put out of the question—how is it possible to believe that when he made that statement he was aware of the grave, important, and high political considerations which we were told on the occasion of the third reading were the real objects of the Bill. I was somewhat curious to see how the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond) would deal with the Prime Minister's main argument; but he managed, with the utmost judgment, to make no reference to it whatever; so I think I am justified in treating that argument of the Prime Minister's as a rhetorical after-thought—not a very happy one, I must say, but one which it is not necessary in this House to discuss seriously. I therefore pass to the reasons which have been given by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond). A great deal of his speech did not really touch on the question of the title at all but was rather addressed to the opinion of India; and surely in reference to Lord Palmerston in regard to the transference of the rule of the old East India Company to the Queen being acceptable to the people of India—that is no argument in favour of changing the title of Queen into that of Empress? The noble Duke gave another rather odd reason for adopting the new title. He said there were considerations which rendered the step inadvisable at the time of the transfer; but that during the 18 years which had elapsed since then the Natives had become accustomed to the mild and beneficent Government of the Queen, which had culminated in the glorious reception given to the Prince of Wales, and the objections to the adoption of the title no longer existed. My Lords, it appears to me a most extraordinary argument to adopt that because a system has worked well up to this moment, and because you have the strongest proof of its success in the reception given to the Prince of Wales, you should choose this particular moment for making a change. It is argued that the title of Queen is objectionable because it may imply to the Native Princes some unusual interference with the internal administration of their large and rich dominions, and that, on the other hand, the title of Empress is advantageous because it identifies that supreme and paramount power which our Sovereign undoubtedly possesses in India, but which has not up to this moment been formally recognized. I have extracts here from various statutes of the times of Henry VIII., Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, and James I., and they all have the same object—namely, to magnify the dignity of the title of King or Queen of England. Word after word and page after page go in precisely the same way to magnify that title, and to oppose it to the pretensions of the Pope on the one hand, and the pretensions of the Continental Emperors on the other. The same language is held still later than that—namely, in the reigns of William III., Queen Anne, and George III., and culminating with the Act of Union. That unbroken series of precedents has been continued down to this day. This country never has consented to allow that any crowned Head in the world, and certainly not in Europe, has any precedence or superiority over the Anglo-Saxon title of King or Queen of England. And during the present century, when there was a question raised at the Congress of Vienna as to precedence, Lord Castlereagh in the strongest way upheld the dignity of the British Crown, and the claim to precedence over it was given up. During my own short tenure of the Foreign Office, I myself had the direct order of Her Majesty to assert, and did successfully assert, in two cases, both in Vienna and at St. Petersburg, that the son of no other Sovereign could take precedence over the son of the Queen of England. I am afraid that what you are now going to do will only weaken our position in this matter. It is all very well to say here in debate that Queen will still remain the superior title; but foreigners will say—"When you wish to take a stronger position in that Empire beyond the seas, and to have the greatest dignity you possibly can have, you come to this title of Empress, and are not contented with the more simple and plainer title of Queen." As to the title of Queen not being sufficient to represent that sort of supremacy which you wish to show in India, I believe that the precedents in this country and in Europe are the other way. Take the case of the Kings of France. I imagine that the Dukes of Normandy, of Burgundy, and of Brittany, were Princes who exercised as absolute a sway in their own dominions as any of our great feudatory Princes in India. The Kings of France did sometimes interfere by force, not by law; but I believe that in point of law at that time the Kings of France did not interfere with the internal dominion and rule of those countries. Nevertheless, when it came to a question of supremacy, our King John, in his quality of a feudatory of Philip II., the King of France, was summoned to appear before that Monarch; and when John refused to go, the King of France solemnly sentenced him, by the concurrence of his Peers, to be a parricide and a felon. I do not think a French King could have gone further than that, even if he had borne the title of Emperor. Then, again, take William the Conqueror and his feudatories—such as Chester and Durham. They exercised in many instances great authority in their own dominions, regulating all sorts of internal affairs, absolutely making laws, raising armies, and making war upon their neighbours—all, as far as I know, without reference to the supreme authority. And yet, do you imagine that a man like William the Conqueror would have been satisfied with that state of things, if he had thought that an Emperor's title would have given him greater power over his vassals than that of King? I believe that the assumed advantage of the title of Emperor over the English title of King is entirely fallacious. With regard to the feeling of the Natives of India on the subject, I am far from giving any opinion. I say merely, that as to that we have absolutely no evidence. The Prime Minister asserted that not only the Princes but millions of the inhabitants of India were anxiously waiting for the assumption of this title. The Secretary of State for India, who probably knows more about that country than the Prime Minister, tells us that which I believe is true—namely, that the Native population is "politically dumb." A great deal has been made of the letter of Lord Northbrook which has been quoted in the other House, and also by the noble Duke. In fact, it has been used as the great cheval de bataille; but it has been rather knocked on the head by its having been shown that it was written in the Native language, and simply expressed the Native idea of the name of the Sovereign. Again, it has been said by the noble Duke that Lord Palmerston insisted upon the Shah of Persia giving the highest Persian title to Her Majesty. It is said he insisted on her being called Empress; but he did nothing of the kind. Lord Palmerston said that in Europe the Queen's title was as high as any other title in the world, and therefore that in the Persian language it should not be translated by any other than the highest title the Persian language expressed. I think, then, this is a case in which, there being no evidence whatever in regard to the feeling in India, the presumption is rather against than in favour of the title of Empress. Oriental nations might be politically dumb, but they were also apt to be exceedingly suspicious, and nothing excited their suspicion more than some new, and to them not very intelligible, action on the part of those who are stronger than themselves. I trust this will not be so in this case; but it is natural to suppose that some such alarm and anxiety of this kind should be felt. In regard to India this title may produce no effect at all; it may produce a good effect; it is impossible to say it will not produce a bad effect—but I, for one, refuse to be a prophet of evil. The noble Duke referred to the assurance given by the Prime Minister as to the limitation of this new title to India. A question hitherto left unanswered in this debate, and which deserves the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, is—what will be the effect of this Bill, and whether, if it is acted upon, it will be possible to localize this title? For myself, I must say I do not like this system of double titles. I object to our Queen, above all persons in the world, having something like an alias in her title. The effect of this Bill, if acted upon, as I understand it—and I find that some learned persons agree with me—will be that the Queen by Proclamation will assume a new title, and that that title being thus created must necessarily find its place in all State documents whether relating to India, the Colonies, foreign countries, and many other matters. I should wish to know from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether that is so? I have in my hand a list—not of all, but of some of the public documents—in which it would seem that it will be necessary that the title of Empress should appear. The list includes all writs of summons to Peers, all writs for elections of Members of the House of Commons, all writs or patents for the erection of dignities, the creation of Peers, Baronets, or Knights by patent; all patents conferring places under the Crown, including the First Lord of the Treasury, the Commander-in-Chief, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Law Officers of the Crown, and others. It includes also proclamations with reference to the meeting and the prorogation of Parliament, patents, charters, commissions of oyer and terminer, and commissions of gaol delivery. The title of Her Majesty is used also in the statutes of every Session of Parliament, in every commission of an officer in the Army, and in the commission of a Justice of the Peace. Now, if I am right in my construction of the Bill before us—if necessarily and legally this new title of Empress will appear in documents which relate to both Houses of Parliament, which relate to the creation of every sort of dignity, which relate not only to the highest Courts of Justice, but to every Petty Session in the country, which relate to the Army, and to all sorts of questions which may arise in municipal boroughs, for instance, and which relate to inventions by which this new title will find its way to all our manufacturing towns—I ask, if this new title is to appear in official declarations in all these places, how is it possible to exclude the use of this new title from the conversa- tional language of the people of this country? The thing has already been done. The head of the chief municipal body of this great Kingdom has already used the name of Empress. One of our most important naval towns by an illumination welcomed the new title; and as the Church is always loyal, a clergyman not only toasted the Queen, but said the new title had this recommendation, that it was a second handle to the Queen's name. Now, that is perfectly true, and what I do object to is that there should be a second handle to Her Majesty's name. We may call ourselves Conservatives, Liberals, or Radicals; but I believe there is hardly a man who has received an ordinary English education who has not a great regard for the traditions which are connected with the glorious past history of this country. Those traditions are strong with regard to the regal title borne by the Sovereigns of this country;—and I am sure your Lordships will feel that the public sentiment on that subject is immensely strengthened by the fact that, most fortunately, during the last 40 years this country has been governed more constitutionally than in any previous period. I have been asked this day—certainly not for the first time—how it is possible that I, considering my former relations to the Court, can take any part with regard to a Bill whose object is to increase the dignity of the Sovereign. It is now nearly 40 years since I first entered Her Majesty's service, and since the time that I first took part in public affairs I cannot say how much I feel the political confidence given me by Her Majesty. I have received from Her Majesty marks of personal kindness which have loaded me with obligations which I cannot discharge to the end of my life. Though I think Party feeling has some advantages, no Party feeling could induce me to do anything that would in the slightest degree impair the dignity and position of our Queen. It was not unnatural when this subject was first raised that this proposal should have been considered as one not only of a simple but also of a beneficial character; but the light which discussion has thrown upon it, and I will also say the excitement which is felt on the subject, make it impossible for me to believe that we are not going to do something which will tarnish and damage the grand old secular title of the Queen, and that by damaging that title we may in a slight degree impair the position of Her Majesty herself. I should feel utterly unworthy of the past favours of the Sovereign, and utterly unworthy of the position which I have been allowed to hold for several years in this House, if I, under that honest and sincere conviction, remained neutral in the discussion which has taken place. With this feeling it may be said that I ought to have spoken against the second reading of this Bill. I do not think so. This Bill comes—which I think always ought to have weight with your Lordships—not only recommended by the Minister of the Crown, and with the full sanction of the Sovereign, but it has been carried by very large majorities through the House of Commons. My noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), without direct or indirect communication either with me or, so far as I know, with my political friends, has given Notice of a Resolution which is to come on previous to the Committee on this Bill; and as that Resolution appears to me to be most respectful to the Queen, and not in the slightest degree to interfere with her Prerogatives, I certainly will not vote against the second reading of this Bill, though I shall most earnestly and cordially support the Resolution when it comes before us.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, the noble Earl who has just sat down (Earl Granville) said that no Member of Her Majesty's Government has risen to support the second reading of the Bill. I think the noble Earl takes an exaggerated view of the difficulties which encompass Her Majesty's Government. The Leader of the House had brought forward the Motion in an ample speech; no Member from the front Opposition Bench had spoken, and—what was more important—the debate had been carried on very satisfactorily by noble Lords who sit on the opposite side of the House. We look on this as an Indian question, and it was with great pleasure we heard two noble Lords of great authority on Indian matters who gave opinions which are of special value, because they were stamped with impartiality, and were in opposition to the views of those with whom they usually act. But if any other reason was wanted to induce us to sit still during the debate it was the utter absence of anything to answer. I have been unable to hear one serious objection to the title of Empress. I have heard a great deal of other titles which it was said might do as well. I have heard of the advantage which the title of Empress might be supposed to bring with it; but I have heard very little in the shape of argument against the adoption of that title. We have proposed to proceed on Indian grounds; and a late Governor General of India (Lord Lawrence) has told us that the fittest opportunity has been taken for making a change, if change there was to be; and by his admission the change will be received not only without dissatisfaction, but with pleasure, to use his own words, by the Princes and the people of India. And another noble Lord who has been Governor of Madras (Lord Napier and Ettrick) told us in the course of his speech that the title of Empress describes better than any other title that can come into competition with it our rule in India—in short, that it will designate the nature of the relations which Her Majesty holds to the Princes and the People of India. We have to designate not only one who rules, but one who rules over rulers, and there is no other title that will express our relations to India so well as that of Empress. We have reason to know that the title was not unknown to the people of India; that it would not be received as anything strange, but as already familiar to their minds. Turning to the subject of the medal which the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) produced this evening, I understood the noble Earl opposite to say that the Governor General had spoken of it as something which only indicated the private opinions of Colonel Merewether. The noble Earl, however, entirely failed to see the force of the testimony afforded by that medal. In the first place, the inscription was not put upon the medal by Colonel Merewether, but by a large committee, consisting of English and Native merchants, as the managers of an Exhibition to which articles were sent by exhibitors, from the North to the South of India, and at which, therefore, I presume a large amount of Native opinion was represented. Of course, we do not put forward the placing of that inscription on the medal as an act of State; but we do put it forward as an indication of spontaneous and popular feeling on this subject. But, it has been admitted by every Indian authority that this change in Her Majesty's title will be acceptable to the people of India. I ask, what authority is there to the contrary? Why, therefore, should we not carry into effect that which we believe will be acceptable to the people of India, and confirm them in their affection to our rule? The noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) began by dwelling in plaintive tones upon the fact that Her Majesty's Government had not, previously to bringing in this Bill, conferred with the Leaders of the Opposition on the subject, and he regretted it, because, he said, that it was a part of the proceeding calculated more than any other to prevent that unanimity which we have professed to be desirable. How are we to read that complaint?

Earl GRANVILLE

I did not say what the noble Marquess attributes to me.

The Marquess of SALISBURY

If the noble Earl will refer to his speech to-morrow he will find that he used language to this effect—that we had done everything possible in the way of bringing in this Bill to prevent unanimity, and then the first proof of our having done so that he offers is that we had not conferred with the Opposition before bringing in the measure. I am, then, to assume that these patriotic, and I may say these ferocious, onslaughts upon the Bill in the House of Commons are due to the wounded feelings of the Opposition because we have not consulted them upon the subject. I venture to hope—indeed, I confidently believe—that the noble Earl takes too gloomy a view of the patriotism of our public men. Then the noble Earl went on to the second portion of his speech—which, without in any way desiring to interfere with the discretion of the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House, I must characterize as most irregular, because the noble Earl discussed—not a single observation made or a single doctrine put forward in "another place"—but the whole management of this Bill in the House of Commons from the beginning to the end, and repeated the various arguments used by the different speakers there. That course is not only exceedingly irregular, but it is also exceedingly in- convenient; because, although he may have learnt by heart all the speeches uttered in the House of Commons in the course of the debate, we have not done so. I think that on further consideration the noble Earl will feel that he has laid down a bad precedent for the conduct of our future debates in this House. I must also say that in taking that course the noble Earl has by implication cast a very undeserved slight upon a very meritorious set of men—the Members of that House who form Her Majesty's Opposition. I think that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe are not utterly insignificant as debaters, and that they are quite as competent to review and to answer any arguments which may be put forward by Mr. Disraeli or by Sir Stafford Northcote as the noble Earl himself is. Those Gentlemen, moreover, in answering those arguments, would have the great advantage of having heard the speeches to which they were replying, and they would review them in the presence of men who were there to defend the words which they had used. But this argument put forward by the noble Earl is hardly one in condemnation of the title of "Empress." Well, then the noble Earl proceeded to deal with the historical part of the subject, and he pointed to William the Conqueror and to the Kings of France, who, he said, had feudatories who were as powerful as the Native Princes of India, and that fact, he says, proves to his satisfaction that the title of King is quite consistent with the claim of being a Paramount Power. I am surprised that any one possessing the historical knowledge of the noble Earl should compare for one instant, in their origin and nature, the relation of ancient feudal Sovereigns with their feudatories, and the Native Princes of India over whom the Queen is paramount. The Native Princes of India were formerly independent, and it was only by the action of political events that they became dependent upon us. The feudatories of the Crowns of France and of England, on the contrary, were in their inception absolutely dependent, and it was only by a long course of usage and by the act of their Suzerain that they became in any degree independent of him. The two cases, therefore, were entirely contrary to each other, the one taking its rise in feudal dependence and the other rising out of absolute independence. But, even if you succeed in showing that the title of King will express the position of a ruler over rulers, how will that prove that the title of Empress should not be adopted with regard to India? The noble Earl who has left the House (Earl Grey) addressed himself to that question, and tried to show that the title of Empress was unpopular in England. I will not deal with the observation of the noble Earl who has just sat down with regard to the illuminated transparency at Portsmouth in which the Prince of Wales is termed "Our future Emperor," because that rather appears to be a testimony in favour of the popularity of the title than the reverse. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) was very much more communicative on the subject than the noble Earl opposite, and he let us know what the nature of the unpopularity of the title of Empress was. He said—"If you go anywhere into society, nine men out of every ten will tell you that they don't like it." That is the bottom of it—it is a story of Society—it is an effervescence of the gossip of the Clubs. In no instance was opposition to the title of Empress shown by the country—either by Petitions presented to the House of Commons or by public meetings—when the Bill was passing through that House; neither was there any indication of popular opposition to it in the Press. But "Society" possibly has a feeling now upon the subject. Society is a very estimable body, but it is subject to one malady—that of want of excitement. The opposition to this measure is rather a source of excitement to Society in a spring-time, which is rather dull; but, when other objects of excitement arise, this feeling of opposition to this title will take its departure altogether. When this measure was first suggested there was no feeling of opposition—no Petitions were presented to Parliament. The noble Earl opposite appeals to the Petitions which he has behind him; but as I was entering the House to-night a letter was put into my hands by a gentleman whom I never heard of before—a clergyman of Blackpool. It was a Petition in favour of the title of Empress from a few householders whose signatures had been obtained in four hours. That does not look like a feeling of serious hostility—at all events at Blackpool. My impression is that the feeling out-of-doors is, in reality, got up by the action of certain clubs. No doubt, by the action of Reform Societies, petitions have been sent in against it—no doubt public meetings adverse to it will be got up at the instance of the Reform Club, whose orders will be obeyed with the discipline which has always been the characteristic of the Liberal Party. But of real spontaneous opposition to this proposal there is absolutely none. Materials for speeches will doubtless be manufactured when the chieftains of the Party have shouted themselves hoarse, moved by circulars issued from political clubs; but at present we are without them. Let noble Lords compare the public manifestations on this subject with those on any other question in which the public takes an interest—why, there has not been so much petitioning against this Bill as there has been on the subject of the vivisection of rabbits. In the absence of external indications of opinion on this question we have one body which is supposed to represent in some degree the opinions of the people. I do not wish to exalt the position of the House of Commons too high; but when we find that the normal majority of the Government was doubled, on the division on the second reading of the Bill, we may be certain that no pressure has been placed upon Members of that House by their constituents. It is true that Lord Grey made a suggestion which I have heard made before with the utmost confidence—namely, that many of those who voted in that majority of 105 did so with manifest reluctance. I should like to have some proof of that.That statement, although made, I believe, with the utmost sincerity, is, in my opinion, utterly false—there is no proof that the majority voted with less cheerfulness than the minority. If it be true that there has been no considerable or noticeable petitioning against the Bill, and that the popular branch of the Legislature has voted the measure by twice the ordinary majority which the First Minister of the Crown can command, I must wait for some more forcible arguments than I have heard from the other side, before I can assume, as we are so confidently told, that the title of Empress of India is objection able to the English people. I do not now know whether this is exactly the most convenient period for discussing this question; because as we are all to vote for the second reading with unanimity, it hardly seems desirable to enter into a controversy upon that on which we are agreed; but as we are to have other and more stormy debates, may I express a hope that the debate of this evening, if it has been a preparation for those that are to come, may not in all things become a precedent? On the other side the debate was opened with a speech so full of flowers of oratory, that it may be called a perfect garden. We were told in the first instance that Empress was a title which could indicate nothing else but military violence; that it was recommended by sycophants and parasites; that Her Majesty's Government had been induced to bring it forward by the flatteries of the Court; that it was a yoke which England repudiated; that the veil had been dragged from the pretext of the Bill; that India was a mere pretence, and that the true object of the Bill was to obtain for the Royal Family precedence in the Courts of Europe. It is against the Rules of both Houses of Parliament that the opinions of the Royal Family should be brought forward to influence Members in the course of debate. That Rule, if it has been observed, should have a corresponding rule to the effect that the Sovereign and Royal Family should not be insulted in the course of our debates.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET

I did not bring in the name of the Sovereign. My observations were directed against the Prime Minister, who had introduced the name of Her Majesty in the other House of Parliament, and were perfectly in Order in a Parliamentary sense.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is all very well; but the noble Duke has not explained the observation he made on the subject of the Royal Family obtaining precedence in the Courts of Europe—an observation which I regard as being altogether at variance with the usages of Parliament. I will not, however, further pursue an unpleasant subject, I will only express a hope, as we take the full, absolute, and exclusive responsibility of this Bill, and do not attempt or dream for a moment of quoting the authority or the wishes of the Sovereign in support of what we do, that, on the other hand, our adversaries, however much they oppose us, will join us in believing that the Queen has throughout been guided only by those Constitutional principles which have been dear to her throughout her reign, and that she has at heart but this one object—to promote the happiness of, and to endear her dominion to, the English people over whom she has so happily reigned for so long a period.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was quite certain that there was no noble Lord on that side—or, indeed, in the House of Lords—who would not entirely agree with the sentiments which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had expressed at the conclusion of his speech. They all recognized that in this as in all other matters they had to look only to the Ministers of the Crown acting on their responsibility; but they had a right to hold the Ministers of the Crown responsible for the advice they gave upon all subjects, but more especially upon any matter which concerned the dignity of the Sovereign, because they had the dignity of the Sovereign especially in their care. The noble Marquess in the opening sentences of his speech and for some time later appeared to treat the whole question in a light manner. He said, for instance, that he did not think this question had excited as much interest out-of-doors as the vivisection of rabbits. He (the Earl of Kimberley) protested against that tone being adopted when they were discussing a matter which affected the dignity of the Crown——

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I said there had not been so many Petitions on this subject as there had been respecting the vivisection of rabbits.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

repeated that the noble Marquess spoke of the one subject not having excited as much interest as the other. He did not suppose the noble Marquess meant the slightest disrespect to the Crown; but he (the Earl of Kimberley) contended that when any matter was discussed which concerned the dignity of the Crown it ought not to be treated in a light or trivial manner. They might ask, "What's in a name?" but this question of a name might be of considerable importance. He did not wish to exaggerate it, and he thought it quite possible to exaggerate the importance of the question of a name; but, at the same time, he contended that it had a certain importance and weight, and all that could be said either for or against deserved to be considered in a serious spirit. He hoped he might be forgiven for referring to what had taken place in the other House. He was rather astonished to hear the doctrine which the noble Marquess had laid down, for noble Lords opposite when they sat on that (the Opposition) side of the House not unfrequently referred to the declarations of Ministers in the other House; and although he did not defend the discussion of the debates of the other House, yet when declarations were made by Ministers of the Crown, and when noble Lords wished to argue that they were not the same as those made by Ministers in that House, he claimed the right to refer to and discuss them. He heard the speech of the noble Marquess in one respect with sincere satisfaction, in that he in no way reproduced that extraordinary and dangerous argument in favour of this Bill, that it was required because the Russians had made advances in Asiatic territory. That argument had this singular misfortune, that it was at once mischievous and trivial. It had been said that the people of India were already more or less familiar with the title of Emperor, because the Russians had approached within a certain distance of our territory. But the title of the Sovereign of Russia was Czar of Russia. It was supposed that he had taken the title of Emperor but that was not correct. He kept the old title of Czar, by which he was known throughout Russia, and which was impressed upon the Russian coinage; but, fearing that he might suffer some discourtesy in the Courts of Europe, he claimed that it should be translated by the highest title in Western languages, which was "Emperor." In the same manner the title of Queen should be translated by the highest equivalent term in India. The argument against the Bill was that it was unnecessary. He did not see why the ancient title of Queen should be departed from or rejected. He thought the most desirable course would be to introduce the name of India in the titles of the Queen, and the title might then be translated into the most appropriate term in the Hindoo language. In a matter so important as this, where so great and ancient a title was concerned as that of the Queen of this country, it seemed to him most undesirable, if they could help it, to interfere with old tra- ditions. He did not think that any title should be proposed which would awake in any portion of Her Majesty's subjects a feeling of dislike. The reason why the title of "Emperor" was so objectionable to English ears was that it conveyed to the minds of the English people something connected with absolute rule—something different from a constitutional Sovereign—and it was impossible to do away with a feeling of that kind. He should be very glad indeed if noble Lords opposite would accept the advice tendered to them from his side of the House—the change would then be received with universal consent, and divested of all Party contention. Above all, it was desirable that they should divest themselves of the idea that those around him approached the question in anything like a Party spirit, or that it gave them any pleasure to oppose the Bill. On the contrary, nothing would give them greater pleasure than that there should be no conflict upon a matter of this kind, on which it was most disagreeable to have to express a difference of opinion, and which it would have been far more satisfactory to every right-minded man to have settled with unanimity.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he did not rise to continue this conversation; and, indeed, while there was no issue before the House but the second reading of the Bill, to which no opposition had been offered, any argument must be, to a certain extent, pointless at this stage; but he rose to answer a Question which, he understood, had been put to him by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) who spoke first from that side of the House—though he was not aware that he was putting it in the form of a Question. He must apologize for that mistake, though, perhaps, he was led into it, because he was aware that in "another place" a very ample and complete declaration had been made. It had been stated elsewhere in the most distinct way that although the intention was that the advice offered to the Crown would be that the ordinary and general use of the Indian title should be confined to India, yet in England, wherever a legal or formal document had to be employed in which the full style and titles of the Crown had to be rehearsed, that style and those titles must be rehearsed at length as they might stand for the time being.

Motion agreed to; Bill read 2^a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

House adjourned at half-past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.