§ MR. DISRAELImoved that the Paragraph in the Gracious Speech from the 408 Throne relating to India and the Royal Titles be now read from the Table.
§ Motion agreed to.
§
Paragraph from Her Majesty's Speech read:—
I am deeply thankful for the uninterrupted health which My dear Son, the Prince of Wales, has enjoyed during his journey through India. The hearty affection with which he has been received by My Indian Subjects, of all classes and races, assures Me that they are happy under My rule, and loyal to My throne. 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.
§ MR. DISRAELIAfter the reading of that paragraph in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, I have now to ask leave of the House to introduce a Bill which will enable Her Majesty to add to the Royal Style and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies. After what we have heard from the Table the House will not require me to inform them that the change contemplated by Her Majesty refers to India. At the time when the Government of India was transferred to Her Majesty by the East India Company, who were her trustees, the propriety of some addition of this kind to the Royal Style and Titles was felt by persons of considerable authority in these matters, and was considered by the Government of that day, of which I happened to be a Member. The proposition was not at that time adopted; but, on the other hand, it was not negatived. There existed circumstances at the time which made us think that it might be premature; but the idea was not relinquished, and it has been one that has often occupied the speculations of those interested in Indian affairs. Since that period—since the transfer of the direct Government of India to the Queen—the interest felt by the people of this country in India has greatly increased. It has become every year deeper and wider. I remember when I first entered this House, now about 40 years ago, that there were, I believe, even Members of Parliament who looked upon India as a vast country which, 409 generally speaking, was inhabited by a single and by a subjugated race. But since then information has been so much diffused among all classes of our countrymen on the subject of India, that even those who have the most ordinary information are now well aware that India is an ancient country of many nations; that it is peopled by various and varying races, differing in origin, in language, in religion, in manners, and in laws—some of them highly gifted and highly civilized, and many of them of rare antiquity. And this vast community is governed, under the authority of the Queen, by many Sovereign Princes, some of whom occupy Thrones which were filled by their ancestors when England was a Roman Province. The presence of the Prince of Wales in India has naturally increased and stimulated this feeling of sympathy in both countries. It is not for me to offer compliments to a Prince so near the Throne, but in fulfilling a public duty the language of truth may be permitted; and I am sure that I am justified in saying that, throughout this great enterprize on his part, his demeanour and his conduct have been such that he has proved that it is not his birth only which qualifies him for an Imperial post. Under all these circumstances, we have considered that the time has arrived when the original intention of Her Majesty and her Advisers should be carried into effect; and I have therefore to ask the House to-night to introduce a Bill which consists of only one clause, which will enable Her Majesty, by Proclamation, to make that addition to her style and titles which befits the occasion. In taking this course I am following a precedent, the validity of which, I think, cannot be impugned. At the time of the Union with Ireland, in the Act of Union itself, there was a proviso enabling the Sovereign, when the Act was passed, to announce, by Proclamation under the Great Seal, the style and title he would assume; and, accordingly, His Majesty King George III. issued a Proclamation under the Great Seal, and adopted the title of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its Dependencies. I propose in the present instance to take the same course. I have to ask the House to-night to give me leave to bring in a Bill which will enable Her Majesty to exercise her high prerogative, and to 410 proclaim the addition to her style and title which she deems expedient and proper. I trust that the House will support Her Majesty's Government in the course they are adopting; because we have reason to feel that it is a step which will give great satisfaction not merely to the Princes, but to the nations of India. They look forward to some Act of this kind with intense interest, and by various modes they have conveyed to us their desire that such a policy should be pursued. I cannot myself doubt that it is one also that will be agreeable to the people of the United Kingdom; because they must feel that such a step gives a seal, as it were, to that sentiment which has long existed, and the strength of which has been increased by time, and that is the unanimous determination of the people of this country to retain our connection with the Indian Empire. And it will be an answer to those mere economists and those foreign diplomatists who announce that India is to us only a burden or a danger. By passing this Bill, then, and enabling Her Majesty to take this step, the House will show, in a manner that is unmistakable, that they look upon India as one of the most precious possessions of the Crown, and their pride that it is a part of her Empire and governed by Her Imperial Throne. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
§ MR. LOWESir, I cannot doubt that Her Majesty's Ministers would not have introduced this measure to the attention of the House unless they were aware that such a measure would be agreeable to Her Majesty's feelings. It is, therefore, doubly difficult for anyone to state any doubts or objections he may have on the subject. But this matter does not only concern Her Majesty—though, no doubt her feelings and wishes in regard to it are entitled to the greatest possible consideration, and I am sure they will always receive it from this House—but it also concerns the people of this country; and the view I take of it is that it is not without importance to their welfare. I hope, therefore, I shall not be thought to be acting disrespectfully in taking the opportunity of the first reading to lay before the Government and the House the objections which occur to me on this subject. I trust they may be carefully 411 considered before the Bill reaches its second reading; and this, perhaps, may be the means of obviating some complications which it would be most desirable, if we can, to avoid, because the House can have no desire to do anything consistently with their duty, not agreeable to Her Majesty. I beg to be understood, then, as wishing merely to suggest to the consideration of the Government points of sufficient importance, as I think, to justify me in taking the rather unusual step I am taking at this time. Now, the first thing which it would be desirable to know is the exact meaning of the word "Imperial;" because, although the right hon. Gentleman has most properly foreborne from anticipating what use Her Majesty may make of the power proposed to be given her, we all know pretty well that what is pointed at is the addition of some title taken from her Indian dominions, and that title, I apprehend, can be only one of two—either that of "Queen "or that of "Empress." Now, I think it is extremely desirable that we should know, when we are dealing with this question, what we exactly mean by "Imperial," and what is implied by the word "Empress." Let me point out what is the law on this subject. It is not very abstruse. The notion of the Crown of England being an Imperial Crown is a very old one, as the 24th & 25th of Henry VIII. will show. At the time he had his quarrel with the Court of Rome he passed two successive Acts declaring the Crown to be an Imperial one. That was reiterated when James I. succeeded to the Crown of England and Scotland, and it was again reiterated in the year 1800 at the time of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. It is, therefore, perfectly well established that the Crown of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and Ireland is an Imperial Crown. But still it remains to be seen what an Imperial Crown means. Blackstone, in his Commentaries, shows clearly that it means something very different from what was supposed by many persons. In page 497 of the second volume of Stephens' Blackstone, reference is made to the fact, that formerly the ridiculous notion existed that an Emperor could do many things which a King could not, and that all Kings were subordinate to the Roman and German Emperors. The meaning of the Legislature in using the word 412 imperial was only to assert that a Sovereign was as supreme in this Kingdom as an Emperor was in his, and was not subject to any Potentate on the earth. Well, then, that being the meaning, what is the state of the case with regard to India? Is not India precisely in the position of an Imperial Crown? There is nobody else who can set up any claim of supremacy over Her Majesty, who holds the uncontrolled and undivided sovereignty of India. The matter, then, resolves itself into this—Her Majesty has precisely the same rights over the United Kingdom as over India, and yet—I am now going on the supposition that the title of Empress will be chosen—Her Majesty is to be called the Queen of one and the Empress of the other. In other words, we are to have the same thing designated by two different names. I can see no advanvantage which can possibly follow from that. To designate the same thing in different ways can only lead to confusion and mischief. It is, in fact, opposing two things to each other, between which there is no opposition at all. Then the practice of the country is worth notice. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the Act of Union of 1800 authorized the style and title of King or Queen for the Sovereign of the United Kingdom, and accordingly on the 3rd of January, 1801, George III. declared his style and title to be that of "King of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith." My memory is at variance with that of the right hon. Gentleman as to the use of the word "dependencies," though I do not pretend to put my recollection against that of the right hon. Gentleman; but according to my recollection in the Proclamation the word "dependencies" is not to be found. That is a matter of great importance in this question. The King took as his description in Latin Georgius Tertius, Dei Gratia, Britanniarum Rex, Fidei Defensor, and in English he was described as "George the Third, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith." I quote this Proclamation at this particular time to show, that although George III. was possessed of an Imperial Crown, yet, acting on the advice of statesmen and lawyers as eminent as any who ever adorned Parliament, he did not think fit to take the title of Emperor, 413 but contented himself with that of King. Then we come to the transfer of India to the British Crown, in 1858. Here we have a precedent of particular importance, because it may be said to have received the assent of two distinct Governments, having been prepared originally by the Government of Lord Palmerston and completed by that of Lord Derby. Both Governments, no doubt—certainly that of Lord Palmerston—very carefully considered the question, and did not think it advisable to add anything to Her Majesty's title. In these matters precedent goes for a great deal, and I have just brought under the notice of the House two cases in which the title of Emperor might have been and was not assumed by Sovereigns of this country. I question very much the expediency of breaking away from a custom established for so many centuries, in the matter of the title of our Sovereigns. But though this is the legal meaning of the title of Emperor it has in ordinary parlance a very different meaning. If what it is now proposed to do is right, there is no reason why Henry VIII. might not have called himself by the title of Emperor. Indeed, before the Conquest some of our Sovereigns did call themselves by the name of Emperor; but as the nation improved, and as liberty increased, they fell back on the good old title of King. The constitutional maxim laid down by legal writers is, that the King ought to be under the law because the law makes the King. The law of Imperial Rome says just the contrary. The doctrine it lays down is that in all things the will of the Emperor is to be accepted. That is the popular notion of an Emperor. Another idea entertained concerning an Emperor is, that he is one who has gained his power by the sword, and that he holds it by the sword. But if we consider a little shall we find it wise and prudent, in dealing with a country like Hindostan, to make a marked distinction between the two countries by giving to our Sovereign a title which implies obedience to law, and to their Sovereign a title which implies the supremacy of force? Why should we give the idea that we won India by the sword, and that we mean to keep it by the sword? That may be true; but is it wise to state it? Is it not one of those things that had better not be put pro- 414 minently forward? The Emperors of Hindostan were Mahomedan conquerors. "Would it be wise or prudent in us to confound in name our wise and beneficent government with that of the Rulers who preceded us? Would it not be much better for us to teach the Natives of India that those men reigned for their own pleasure and gratification, the welfare of their people being a secondary consideration; and that our object, on the contrary, is simply to do as much good to the people under our Government as possible, and to spend their money, not in luxury, debauchery, and show, but in promoting their interests materially and morally? There is another objection to the title of Empress—a rather sentimental one perhaps, but which has, nevertheless, some weight with me, particularly as we know that "young India" now reads classics and history. Which would furnish the better associations in their minds? Whether the memories and deeds of the noble line of Kings that have reigned in England from the time of Egbert, who have associated their names with the glories of her history, and with the triumphs of her civilization; or of the wretches who have filled the throne of Imperial Borne, who have been often raised to their position by military violence, and who sank below ordinary human nature in debauchery and crime? If we have two sets of associations, why choose the worse? Taken altogether, our history for 1,000 years will compare favourably with that of any other country in the world for the same period. What I would urge in view of all this is that the assumption by Her Majesty to the title of Empress of India would not be a wise or judicious course. There still remains the question—which I have not yet touched upon—whether Her Majesty might not with propriety assume the title of Queen of India. I am sure the House will see, even if this discussion be rather dry, how very desirable it is that matters which are not fully understood by everybody should be fully stated. As far as I am concerned, it is my utmost wish, if we can, to comply with Her Majesty's desire. Suppose we say the Queen of India. The Queen is Defender of the Faith. "Defender of the Faith" is a title which has done much hard work in its time, from the period when 415 Henry VIII. received it for supporting the Roman Catholic faith, and retained it after he had suppressed that faith. Therefore, as the title has borne so much, it may be considered that it can bear a little more. Supposing it to be the wish of Her Majesty to assume the title of Queen of India; the title would run something like this—Her Majesty, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and India; Defender of the Faith. Then the question would arise, "Whose faith?" If we were to take the grammatical construction, it would mean the faith of India; but some people might wish to be more explicit and add an "s," so that it would read Defender of the Faiths. This is a difficulty which I do not say might not be overcome, but I do say it is not merely ludicrous. It illustrates the difficulty of putting on new titles upon those old time-worn English titles which have got a meaning of their own beyond what they had when they were first instituted. It is, in fact, like putting a new patch on an old garment. I have two other difficulties on this question which I wish to state, and one of these is that I suppose there is no greater marvel in the world than the conquest of India by England, except the feat of retaining it at this moment. Most of us remember how very near we were losing India some 20 years ago. ["No!"] Well, that was the impression then, at any rate. Suppose the Crimean War had lasted another year, and then that the rebellion had taken place, instead of giving us nearly a year's breathing time, might not this country have been put to a great extremity? It is quite possible, at any rate. We cannot regard our position in India with the confidence we feel with reference to the possession of Hampshire or Sussex. I want to know what sort of feelings the Parliament of the day would have when they came to alter the style of Her Majesty and blot India out from her titles. We once believed ourselves to be the conquerors of Prance, and our Kings assumed the title of Kings of Prance; but the French beat us out of France, and left us only with a single small town in it. In 1450 our chance of ruling it was utterly destroyed; but how long was it before we could make up our mind to give up the title of "King of France?" It was not till 1801,350 years 416 after the last possible opportunity of getting it back had disappeared, and some 130 or 140 years after our King had condescended to live upon the moneys doled out to him by Louis XIV. That shows the inconvenience of loading yourselves with titles which you are not sure of retaining. The last objection which I have is much more powerful, and I hope it will receive the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government—a favour which I hope will also be extended to to the other points I have urged. The Queen is Sovereign of other dominions besides that of the United Kingdom. Among these other dominions is India; but India is not the only one, and it is by no means the most important one. Certainly, it is not the dominion of which we have most reason to be proud. There is no use going back on the history of our connection with India; what is done is done. We gained our Colonies in gallant action, fighting our equals in civilization and the arts of war. We won them gloriously, we held them by the strong hand, and none of them have since had any reason to repent that they came under our rule. We planted them with a hardy and industrious race of men, and enabled them to become in due time the mothers of nations, and the seeds themselves of great Empires. There is nothing of which England has more reason to be proud. We have founded colonies, like Australia for instance, of which we have every reason to be proud, without shedding a drop of blood. Well, what do you think these great communities will say if they find India—of which I will say nothing that is not perfectly fair and respectful—selected to be placed above them, although in no respect so important to this country? It will be putting aside our own flesh and blood, our own descendants, who have so nobly vindicated the character of England in every quarter of the globe, by their industry and success, in order to bestow this extraordinary mark of Royal favour and approbation. Having been a colonist myself I am quite certain this slight will be extremely felt. I should be sorry to find it was not, because it would prove, what I do not now believe, that our fellow-countrymen in the different colonies and dependencies of England do not care whether or no their connection with the mother country is maintained. No 417 doubt it would be a sufficient answer, if the right hon. Gentleman could give it, to say that the colonies were mentioned in the Royal style, and, therefore, that we only have to add India to complete it. But the colonies never have been mentioned. The definition of a colony is a settlement beyond the seas to which Acts of Parliament do not apply unless it is named in them, but which is under the Crown. The colonies are no parts of the United Kingdom, nor are they, properly speaking, dependencies—these words apply to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. To pick out India now, and put a slight on all these great communities, is a matter which I think ought to be well weighed by the House. If my argument has more warmth than my undertaking warrants, my excuse is that I wish the question may be fully and completely laid before the House, the Government, and Her Majesty; and I hope, if these difficulties cannot be avoided, that their statement will lead to a re-consideration of the whole question, or if they can, when the measure again comes before us, that it will be in such a form that we shall have no difficulty in accepting it.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he thought it right to disclaim any community of feeling with the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, so far as regarded the particular arguments which he had adduced. Being connected with India himself, he was proud Her Majesty was about to take a title which would indicate that we had taken India, and that we meant to keep it. He was not afraid that Her Majesty should take the title because a day might come when this country would lose India. He doubted if that time would come; and he did not believe it would come for a long time. He thought it well that Her Majesty should mark the position which this country held in relation to that country, by assuming a title connected with India. What that title should be it was not for him to say; but he must remark that he hoped the title would be one which would distinctly mark the Imperial character of our rule. He thought that the time had come when Her Majesty should assume in name, as in effect, the position hitherto occupied by the Great Mogul in India. When he said that he did not mean that Her Majesty should 418 personally assume the position of an absolute Sovereign; but he said that She, as the Representative of the British Nation, should occupy Imperial power, and be superior to all other power in India. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had said that India under Her Majesty was ruled by Princes; but four-fifths of India was not ruled by Princes at all, and our greatest interest was connected, not with the Princes, but with the ryots of India. No doubt, a considerable portion of India was ruled by Princes under the British Government; but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in error when he spoke of them as coming of ancestors who held their position when Britain was a Roman province. The history of the Princes in India was very much shorter than that, for all the greatest of them were creations of the last century. The only Princes who were of very ancient ancestry were the chiefs of clans, like the Highland clans in this country. He did not know that there was any Prince with a very ancient family who held a higher historical position in India, at any rate in his eyes, than the Duke of Argyll in Scotland. He repeated that the ancient Indian Chiefs were very much in the position of our Highland Chiefs; but there were more modern families who occupied, under the Great Mogul, a very high position, as they did now under Her Majesty. It was politic, therefore, that some title should be taken by Her Majesty to mark her superiority to those Princes; but, as regarded the position of Her Majesty in relation to this country, it was not desirable that She should hold personally the position of the Great Mogul in India; and he assumed that Her Majesty's Ministers would take such measures that Her position would not be inconsistent with the control of Parliament, and that it should be within the four corners of the Constitution of the Realm.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that they had had a long dissertation from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) upon a subject which was not really before the House. He had assumed that Her Majesty would be advised to take the title of Empress of India; but there was nothing before them to show this. As the question, however, had been raised in the course of the discussion, he (Sir George Bowyer) would say 419 a word or two about it. The right hon. Gentleman had said truly that the Crown of this Realm had always been held to be Imperial, in order to meet the idea that an Emperor held power over a King; but he (Sir George Bowyer) apprehended that if Her Majesty should decide to take the title of Empress of India She would take that title in a very different sense from that in which the Crown of England was called Imperial, which was with the view of asserting that that Crown was not inferior to that of any other country. History showed that the title of Emperor was derived from the Roman Empire—from Caesar; and the idea of a Roman Emperor was that of a King over other Kings, a potentate who had for subjects tributary Kings. This seemed to him to meet the difficulty which had been raised. In India the Queen was undoubtedly the Sovereign over Sovereign Princes. It might be all very well to compare the Princes of India to the Duke of Argyll; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was perfectly right, for there were Rajahs in India, Sovereign Princes, whose families went back more than 1,000 years, and whose ancestors had always been great Princes in that country. There were other Princes whose origin was more modern, who had great armies and vast territories—as, for example, Scindia. The idea of an Emperor, that of King over Kings, was an Oriental idea, as was shown by the title Shah-in-Shah, and the Queen in India might well be called a Sovereign over Sovereign Princes. He thought that this was a sufficient answer to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe). Then the right hon. Gentleman came to the title "Queen of England," and he was so difficult to be pleased that he was not even satisfied with that. He said that what was proposed would offend the Colonies. But the Sovereign's title had never been taken from the Colonies. Sovereign titles also were mostly taken from conquest, and we had taken India by conquest. Then he objected to the title of "Defender of the Faith;" but he (Sir George Bowyer) did not see any difficulty in disposing of that obstacle. The Queen might be called "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, and Queen of India." This would 420 dispose of the objection which had been raised. He was sure that the assumption of a title by Her Majesty—be it that of Queen or Empress—with reference to India would give great satisfaction in that country. It would give the inhabitants of India the feeling that they were no longer to be ruled as a dependency acquired by conquest, but that both the Sovereign and people of England took a pride in that great Eastern dominion, with its population of 240,000,000, and were beginning to have a deeper interest in its welfare. The notion of governing India by the sword—at one time a necessity—was, he hoped, for ever abandoned, while he had every confidence that the proposal of the Prime Minister, if carried, preceded as it would be by the visit of the Heir to the Throne to India, would convince the people of that country that we were anxious that our rule there should be one of strict justice, and that our desire was that we should long continue to possess her to be an honour and a glory to the Imperial Crown.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI merely rise for the purpose of saying that, though I do not complain of the form in which this Bill is brought before the House—that of giving power to the Queen to assume what title She may think fit—yet I venture to say that I trust the House will be informed before the second reading what the title will be. I do not think that we should be departing from our respect for the Queen, or that we should not be showing due deference to Her wishes—and, indeed, I think that we should not be doing our duty as subjects—if, in a matter so closely connected with our position as subjects, we did not take the opportunity of expressing our opinions with regard to this title. I confess that I think it is possible that a title might be assumed to which we might, from motives of loyalty, feel that we ought to make some objection. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the word "Empress"—although I do not know that either the Minister or the Crown would suggest that title—is a word not very suited to English ideas, and the Imperial idea of government is not one very pleasing to English feelings. I would prefer the old phrase of King or Queen. Again, if we are to make this an opportunity to convey an impression to our Indian fellow-country- 421 men, let us endeavour to convey a true one. If we convey the idea of personal rule, it would not be a true impression. The Queen governs over them, as over us, with the assistance of the Lords and Commons—of her Parliament; and it would not be right, or wise, or true to give a notion to the vast multitudes of India that in her dominion they would have anything approaching a personal government. Another reason why I am very anxious to know what the title is to be is the possibility of what may be omitted. If there is any change, there ought to be an allusion to the colonies. It would be a slight to them if they were omitted. So long as our Sovereign is called King or Queen of Great Britain and Ireland they were included; but if India be picked out the colonies will feel that they ought at least to be mentioned. I do not doubt that is found to be a practical difficulty. The Prime Minister was under the impression that in the first year of this century a Proclamation was made alluding to the "dependencies." The right hon. Gentleman would see that that was not the case. [Mr. DISRAELI: It is in the Act.] What is in the Act is, that there is power to do so if the King should think fit. The Act says that—
the country shall pass by the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and that the Royal style and title appertaining, to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its dependencies should be so as by our Royal Proclamation we should appoint.There is, however, no mention of the dependencies in the Proclamation, and this shows practically the difficulty. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would not think of calling our vast colonies now "dependencies," and I am only pointing this out as a practical difficulty. A difficulty, I suppose, was felt at the time of the change of rule in India, for the Proclamation there alludes to both colonies and dependencies. It was never issued in England or passed by the Council in England; but I suppose it was sent here for approval by the Council, and I find it in The Times of December 6, 1858. It is a Proclamation by the Queen' in Council to the Princes and people of India. It is stated to be by the "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Colonies and Dependencies thereof in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia;" and I think it is desirable 422 that this should be borne in mind. If after this India was added, and no allusion made to the great colonies of Canada and Australia, I think there would be a discontent, which I should be glad to see exist, because the absence of it would show disloyalty.
§ SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEdesired to express his total dissent from the observations of the hon. Member near him (Sir George Campbell), and he hoped this debate would not close without Her Majesty's Government giving some disavowal to the proposal that, in assuming this new title they were advising the Queen to assume new powers and new prerogatives as regarded the Princes of India which the Queen did not at present possess. It was to be very much deprecated that it should go forth to the people of this country and of India that observations had been made in this House by a Gentleman having a large acquaintance with India, calling upon the Government to advise Her Majesty to assume the powers of the Great Mogul. Having some knowledge of India himself, he strongly protested against anything of the kind, because it was most unadvisable and dangerous. Many years ago a certain doctrine was started by a former Governor General of India as to their being Lords Paramount of India, which had its effect in the assertion of the Government with regard to cases of adoption. The power they had received a rude shock in the Sepoy War, and at its close, when the Government of India was assumed by the Sovereign of this country, the Government of the day issued a Proclamation disavowing those doctrines, and announcing that the rights of succession which the Native Princes held so dear would be respected. That precedent might, in his opinion, be followed at the present time. He would not enter into the question as to the meaning of the titles of Emperor and King; but he thought the people of India would watch the matter very closely and anxiously, to know if under it any extra power or authority was assumed; and in the event of the House advising Her Majesty to adopt this new title, a Proclamation ought to go forth assuring the Native Princes and the people of India generally that no more was meant by the title than the words themselves conveyed. With regard to 423 the Native Princes, of whom his hon. Friend had spoken so slightingly, and almost contemptuously—[Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No, no!]—well, perhaps he meant to compliment them by comparing them to Lord Lorne. These Native Princes held their rights under treaties by which they entered into voluntary engagements with the British Government, and which placed them, it was true, in a certain position of dependency; bnt they were as much the champions of their rights and held them as dearly as the inhabitants of this country do the liberties they enjoy. Nothing was more to be deprecated than our assuming power beyond these treaties.
§ MR. NEWDEGATE, while no one was more anxious that everything should be done to secure and, if possible, enhance the dignity of Her Majesty's titles, hoped nothing would be done to disturb, directly, or indirectly, or in any way, the title by which the Queen and Her Majesty's predecessors had been long honoured as Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom. He remembered that in 1850, with reference to the question of a new coinage, an attempt was made to abridge the title of Her Majesty. It was sufficient at that time to call the attention of the House to the change that was contemplated, in order to induce the Government of the day to abandon the idea of curtailing Her Majesty's title as Queen of the United Kingdom. The Crown of the United Kingdom was undoubtedly Imperial by the title of centuries. Nothing could add to its force, and it could only lose by being tampered with. Whatever additional titles Her Majesty might be advised to assume, he trusted that Her Majesty's present title to the Crown of the United Kingdom—" Victoria, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith," would remain inviolate.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, it was somewhat premature to discuss the Bill. It was quite true that so far they had had no proposal that the new title should be Empress of India, but that would be the question of interest. If the title of Empress was combined with that oft Queen, they would have to consider what those terms meant. If they had the same meaning, one or the other must be superfluous; but if, on the other hand, they had different and opposing meanings, the one must contradict the other. 424 We need not go back to the history of the words in order to find out their meaning, because the people of this country would be content to take their ordinary acceptation of the meaning—namely, that "King" or "Queen" was a constitutional title, and that "Emperor" or "Empress" was a despotic title. Consequently, to add "Empress" to the title of the British Queen would be derogatory to her. He sincerely hoped it would not be attempted, and he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that it would be a slight and an insult to our great colonies if we took up India and left the others out altogether. He should, indeed, be surprised if the colonies did not regard such an attempt with great indignation. If they did not, it would mean that they eared little about us. He would suggest that Her Majesty's title should be "Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, of Canada, Australia, India, and South Africa." That title might be inconveniently lengthy; but it would not insult either of our colonies.
§ MR. DISRAELIThe right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) himself must have felt that, with the exception of his last remarks, he was scarcely able to attract the attention of the House. There was one feature about them which did not surprise me, and that was that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated, as the basis of his argument, that we should one day lose India. He is the only right hon. Gentleman in the House who would have offered an argument of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman is a prophet, but he is always a prophet of evil. Whether retaining our rule in India, or attacking a war in Abyssinia, I am always prepared to hear from the right hon. Gentleman a prophecy of the dark-coming fortunes of this prosperous country. Then, the right hon. Gentleman says that the precedents are against us. He says that the Government of Lord Palmerston, which had to consider the state of India, and the Government of Lord Derby, which had to construct the new Constitution for India, both declined taking the step which I have to-night asked the House to advise Her Majesty to take. But is it not obvious that there were ample and sufficient rea- 425 sons why the Ministries of Lord Palmerston and Lord Derby should not have considered it then expedient for the Government of this country to take a step of this kind? Why, when our swords, were reeking with carnage in terminating a mutiny of almost unequalled magnitude, that certainly was not a period when we could advise Her Majesty to make an addition to Her titles. Though I did not care to mention the subject, that, of course, was the reason why, in the Administration of Lord Derby, we did not take the step which we for some time considered. Then the right hon. Gentleman said his last observation was one worthy of the attention of the House, and of a most serious character. That was as to the slur we are now putting on the colonies by the course I am indicating by the introduction of this Bill. We need not now go into any argument, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has said, on the language of the Act of Union and the Proclamation. It turns out, as was my first impression, that by the provision in the Act of Union Parliament enabled the Sovereign to proclaim his style and title for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its dependencies. But I was first met by a denial that that language was in the Act.
§ MR. DISRAELIWhen the King, who had to carry into effect the provision of the Act of Parliament, considered what was the style and title which would adequately and completely represent his position as a Sovereign, he described himself as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, because the dependencies were contained in that title, because he felt that the colonies were contained in Great Britain and Ireland. Therefore, as to the alleged slur, I think, on the contrary, it would be a slur to introduce the names of the colonies into this Bill. It would be a slur to tell Australia and Canada and the men of New Zealand—"You are to create a specific title for the Sovereign, and are not to rank amongst the population of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and I Ireland." Considering the intimate relations between our colonies and the United Kingdom—considering that this House of Parliament is strengthened and 426 enlightened by several Gentlemen who distinguished themselves in the colonies—it is absurd to suppose that our colonial fellow-subjects misconceive the spirit in which we are proposing to legislate; but, on the contrary, I believe there would be great cause of complaint if we drew a line and made a distinction between those of Her Majesty's subjects who live in the United Kingdom and those who are to be found in Canada or elsewhere. Still there is one point upon which I would make a remark, and that is with reference to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), with regard to the possible misconception of our proposal by the Indian Princes. I have no fear of that. Certainly, this Bill is not brought in merely to gratify the Indian Princes; but with a conviction that it will be a source of satisfaction to the many millions of people who in India obey the rule of Her Majesty the Queen, but I may say, that we happen to know that, as far as any particular class in India is concerned, it is the Native Princes who will be peculiarly gratified if this step is taken. I must still describe them as a numerous body of Sovereign Princes. The statement that some are of very great antiquity I was surprised to hear doubted, for it is a subject which is capable of demonstration. Others, it may be, are of more recent origin; but in the majority of cases they possess large armies, vast treasures, capital cities, and millions of subjects. During the visit of the Heir Apparent to India these Princes have been brought very much together at courtly festivals and on occasions when His Royal Highness has held investitures of knightly orders. These last assemblies have, more than the merely festival occasions, brought the Princes into intimate relations with the Crown; and while they have felt proud to be the feudatories of a great Power, they have felt anxious that some steps should be taken in order to bring them more closely into union with the Crown. I think, therefore, that to the Indian Princes this course which we suggest will be most gratifying. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) deprecates any change in the titles of Her Majesty; but I would remind him that the present Bill, so far from making any change, would merely 427 enable Her Majesty to add to the titles She at present possesses—therefore, the fears of my hon. Friend have no foundation. I trust, therefore, that the House will allow me to introduce this Bill. Of course, every observation that has been made will receive grave and sincere attention on our part; but it is because we are convinced that it is a matter of high policy that this step should be taken that I press upon the House for permission to introduce this Bill, and to ask that it be now read the first time.
MR. BRIGHTI do not intend to add a word to the debate on this subject, which has been so interesting; but the question which has been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), as to whether the Government will state what is intended to be done before the Bill comes to a second reading, is an important one, to which no answer has been given. I think hon. Members who are quite willing that something should be done, and hon. Members who think nothing is necessary, will be equally anxious to know what is intended to be done before they pass the Bill. For what we are doing affects, no doubt, the sentiment of the people, not only in the United Kingdom, but in every part of the Empire, and it affects also, not only those who are now living, but those who are to come after us. Therefore, I think the House is entitled to know what is intended to be done before it passes a Bill giving the power to do something in regard to a matter which we deem to be of considerable importance.
§ MR. DISRAELII would just point out to the right hon. Gentleman that if I give the information which he requires—I do not say, so far as I am personally concerned, I will or will not; but I am now speaking abstractedly on the point—if I give the information which he requires, we shall not pass a Bill enabling Her Majesty to use and assume titles which She thinks expedient; but that, on the contrary, we shall be binding Her Majesty down to use only that one we shall have passed. It is quite unusual to take that course; it was not taken in the former instances to which I have adverted; and it would be an invasion of the just Prerogative of the Crown which certainly ought not to be rudely touched. At the same time, it is well known that Her Majesty has 428 hitherto exercised her Prerogative in the most gracious manner, and I will only say at present that I hope the House will allow the Bill to be introduced.
§ MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, he thought that as Queen was the title held by Her Majesty as the head of the United Kingdom, a State with a Constitutional Government, She ought to be styled Empress of India where the Government was despotic. In Austria, Francis Joseph was Emperor—for there his Government was a despotism—but in Hungary, the Constitution of which differed very materially from that of Austria, he was King. India was not a representative Government, but a Government of Lieutenant Governors and Commissioners not elected by the people of India.
MR. GOLDSMIDbegged to say, that the Government of Austria was no more a despotic Government than the Government of England.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Bill to enable Her Most Gracious Majesty to make an addtion to the Royal Style and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. Secretary CROSS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, and Lord GEORGE HAMILTON.