HC Deb 16 March 1876 vol 228 cc75-164

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Disraeli.)


in rising to move— That, while willing to consider a measure enabling Her Majesty to make an addition to the Royal Style and Title, which shall include such Dominions of Her Majesty as to Her Majesty may seem meet, this House is of opinion that it is inexpedient to impair the ancient and Royal dignity of the Crown by the assumption of the style and title of Emperor, said: Mr. Speaker, Sir, the House will believe me when I say that I undertake the task of moving this Amendment against the further progress of the Bill now before us with great reluctance. I remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), when he made some remarks on the introduction of this Bill, stated why it was a matter of very considerable delicacy and very considerable difficulty to deal with. He stated—and his statement is perfectly correct—that it can hardly be supposed that Her Majesty's Ministers have introduced this measure without ascertaining that the proposal they make will not, at all events, be distasteful to the feelings of Her Majesty. Therefore, if we be- lieve—as we must believe—that Her Majesty's feelings are to some extent, however small that extent may be, interested in this matter, I am sure the House will give me credit for feeling that I am placed in a position which is not only delicate, but painful, when I venture to submit to the House some reasons why this Bill should not be further proceeded with. Since the introduction of this Bill grave questions have arisen—questions larger and wider than any contemplated at the time it was introduced; larger, certainly, than were foreseen by the people of this country in general; larger than were foreseen by the public Press or by public men in general. And it is the duty of this House not to shrink from the discussion of these issues now that they have been raised—issues which may possibly affect not only the future administration of our Government in India, but which may also touch the place which the Crown has hitherto held, and now holds, in the feelings and affections of the people of this country. Sir, I am very far from imputing any blame to Her Majesty's Government for the introduction of this measure. Some of us might have doubted the necessity—some might doubt the expediency—but very few, I think, upon this side of the House would have been found to oppose warmly the introduction and passing of a measure the object of which should be, as stated in the Preamble of this Bill, the recognition of the transfer of the Government of India to the direct Government of the Queen. And no one could have felt any doubt that, if such a measure were introduced at all, the present was a most fitting and opportune moment for introducing it—the moment when, for the first time in our history, the eldest son of the Sovereign has visited, and made himself acquainted with India itself, and when he has been cordially and loyally received by all classes of Her Majesty's subjects there. As to the title itself which Her Majesty is advised to assume, I am perfectly ready to admit that, unless the Government was possessed of something of the spirit of prophecy, it would have been difficult for them to foresee the repugnance and distaste with which the proposed title is viewed by a large portion—I do not say by the whole—of the people of this country. That feeling, whether it be great or whether it be small, which now does exist, at all events to a certain extent, is a feeling perfectly spontaneous in its growth. It has certainly not been stimulated by articles in the public Press. It has not been stimulated by speeches in this House. As to the Press, when this proposal was first made the opinion of the Press was almost unanimous in its favour; and when my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) thought it his duty upon the introduction of the measure to make some observations upon its scope and objects, what was the objection taken to the speech of my right hon. Friend? It was that my right hon. Friend presented a view of our position and prospects in India which were the very reverse of the view likely to commend itself to popular sympathy; and I can imagine no speech less intended or calculated than the speech of my right hon. Friend to raise a popular cry against the proposed title. Then, Sir, I maintain that the feeling which exists in the country on this subject is one of a perfectly spontaneous growth; that from the moment when the real effect of the Bill was known this feeling has been growing in strength from day to day; and it must be admitted, I think, by the Government itself that if the Bill is passed—as I suppose it will pass—and Her Majesty assumes the title which she is to be advised to assume, she will not assume it by that unanimous acclamation of the people of this country which alone, I conceive, would render such a title acceptable to Her Majesty. While, as I have said, I impute no blame whatever to the Government for the introduction of the measure, I cannot admit that their conduct of the measure has been judicious. The speech in which this Bill was introduced to the House, either intentionally or otherwise, failed to convey to the House the true nature and extent of the issue raised by the proposal of the Government. The First Lord of the Treasury has stated that there has been no mystery in this matter. I must take leave to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. I think there has been, and there is still, mystery, and unnecessary mystery; and this unnecessary mystery accounts for much of the repugnance which the measure has created. There was mystery when the right hon. Gentleman refused, on the introduction of the Bill, to tell the House what title Her Majesty would be advised to assume. The right hon. Gentleman rested his refusal upon precedent, and upon respect to the Royal Prerogative. But, if the right hon. Gentleman conformed to the strict letter of precedent, in my opinion he departed widely from the spirit of precedent. If the right hon. Gentleman followed strictly the precedent of the Act of Union, he could point to no precedent for asking the House to consider a measure as to the scope and object of which we were left in entire ignorance. Then as regards respect for the Royal Prerogative, I think that the Royal Prerogative is not concerned in this matter at all. By "the exercise of the Royal Prerogative," I take to be meant the exercise of some power for which the Crown does not require the assent of Parliament. But when Her Majesty's Ministers come to the House and ask Parliament to grant powers which Her Majesty does not at present possess, it appears to me there can be no question of Prerogative at all; it is open to Parliament to refuse or to grant these powers precisely under the conditions which may seem most expedient to Parliament. There was mystery again when the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend (Mr. Samuelson), refused to state what title Her Majesty would be advised to take. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that the answer to a Question put by a private Member was not a fitting opportunity for giving this information to the House, the right hon. Gentleman might at least have informed the House that, at a fitting time, such a statement would, be made, instead of waiting for the second reading, and asking the House to pass on the same evening the second reading of a Bill the scope and purpose of which they had only just learnt. There was mystery again when the right hon. Gentleman refused, in answer to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Noel), to lay on the Table the despatches which had been received from India upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman said it would not be expedient to lay on the Table these despatches, or extracts from these despatches; and for this reason— They involve," he said, "political considerations with reference to the particular title contemplated by Her Majesty—considerations which we have scrupulously refrained from introducing, and I trust that these debates may be closed without their being introduced. Is there no mystery in such an announcement as this? "Political considerations" are involved, and these "political considerations" are not only not to be discussed by this House, but we are not even to be told what these "political considerations" are. Last of all, there was mystery in the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman when, in answer to my hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt), he refused to state whether the Governor General in Council, or the Indian Council, had been consulted at all on the subject of this Bill. I now turn from the course of conduct adopted by Her Majesty's Government since the introduction of this Bill to the Bill itself, and to the title which it is proposed that Her Majesty should assume. We are told that this proposal is made in the interests of India, and in the interests of India alone. We have, however, had no information up to this time as to the Indian object which this measureis expected to attain, the Indian advice upon which this measure has been based, or the Indian results which it is expected to accomplish. We have been told that it is merely the completion of an intention formed in 1858—an intention postponed, but an intention which has never been abandoned. Sir, it is not our fault if the conduct of the Government and the form of the Bill itself lead us to suppose that there is something more in this proposal than the mere resumption of an intention which may have been formed in 1858. We have the declaration of the Government, to which I have just referred, that "political considerations" are involved as to the particular title which Her Majesty is to assume, and we have the evidence also of the Preamble of the Bill itself, to which, with the permission of the House, I will allude. The Preamble of the Bill recites that by the Act for the better Government of India 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. But, Sir, that is not a correct recital of the Act for the better Government of India. That Act recited— That the territories in the possession or under the government of the East India Company, and all rights vested in them or which if this Act had not been passed might have been exercised by the said Company in relation to any territories in India, should become vested in Her Majesty. Well, what is the object of that recital in the Preamble? If the reason for this change of title is to be found in political considerations, to which reference is to be avoided if Her Majesty is to be advised to assume more direct and personal power over the whole of India, over the Princes and the people of India, we contend that this is a policy, whether it be right or whether it be wrong, which ought not to have been introduced to the notice of the House in a Bill of this kind—a Bill which, discuss it as we may, cannot be discussed without some reference to considerations personal to Her Majesty the Queen. Then, if I assume that the Government will be willing to alter the Preamble as proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, am I also to assume that the Prime Minister will offer to the House some explanation of those mysterious political considerations with which, he said, we ought not to meddle? We have been told that the Princes and the people of India are ardently desirous that the Queen should assume this new title. Well, as to the people of India, we were informed the other night by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for that country that the people of India are politically dumb; and therefore the expression of their ardent desire upon this matter can hardly have influenced Her Majesty Government. And, as to the Princes themselves who may have expressed some such wish, I would venture to suggest to the House that this new title which Her Majesty is to be advised to assume, can only reach them through the medium of translation. An important point, therefore, for our consideration is, what the English title of the Queen in respect of her Indian possessions is to be, and what is the translation into the Oriental languages by which that title would be made known to our fellow-subjects in India. We have not been told by any Member of the Government what change in the translation of the title of Her Majesty is to be the result of this measure. I am quite willing to admit that no great amount of information would be con- veyed to the House if we were told the Hindoo word by which the title is to be translated. But I think the House ought to know, and ought to be told by the Government as precisely as could possibly be done what is the exact scope and significance of the new Indian title which is to be substituted for the present one in the Oriental languages. Further, I maintain that we ought to be told, what, however, we have not been told, that the title of King or Queen is not equally capable of being translated into the highest term known to the Oriental languages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night gave some reasons and precedents for the adoption of the title of Empress, and he related an anecdote of Lord Palmerston, who some years ago insisted in some negotiations with the Persian Government that the term describing Her Majesty should be the highest title known in the Persian language. But the argument derived from that circumstance does not seem to me to go as far as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would imply. What was the view of Lord Palmerston? It was that the title of the Queen should be expressed by the highest title used in that country. He insisted that the Persian Government should render Her Majesty's title by the highest word known in their language. It remains still to be explained why the Queen retaining the ancient title of Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and of India, that title should not be translated into a fitting word of similar import by the Indian Government. And now I should like to say one word as to the colonial aspect of this question. I think nothing could have been better than the spirit of the remarks made with reference to the colonies by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury upon the first introduction of this Bill. But unfortunately the facts of the case did not exactly bear out the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman based upon what he then stated. The right hon. Gentleman said—and I believe with perfect truth—that the colonists regard themselves not so much as Canadians or Australians, as Englishmen living in Canada or Australia; and he argued, therefore, that they would regard it rather as a slur than otherwise if, by the enumeration of the Colonial Dominions of the Queen, it was suggested that the Australians and Canadians were no longer British subjects. That, I think, would have been a good argument if the title of Her Majesty had been Queen of Great Britain or of England and Ireland. But by no stretch of language, by no stretch of imagination, can it be maintained that Canada and Australia are included in Great Britain and Ireland. And therefore it does seem—at first sight at all events—when, for the first time, one of the dominions of Her Majesty outside Great Britain and Ireland is to be included in the Royal Title, that our colonial fellow-subjects might feel some slur was put upon them by the omission of all reference to the equally important colonial possessions of Her Majesty. But the right hon. Gentleman on another occasion took up very different ground. On the second reading of the Bill, speaking of the colonies, and of the reasons why they were not to be included in the new title, the right hon. Gentleman said it was because the colonists are a fluctuating population, they come, they go, they have ample means of maintaining their connection with the British Crown in the persons of those gentlemen who, having made large fortunes in the colonies, take up their residence in London, and are presented and attend Her Majesty's Court. Well, Sir, that, I think, is not the way in which the colonies would desire to be regarded, or in which they do regard themselves. I do not think the colonies would wish to be represented entirely by those colonists who came over to England. I do not think the colonies desire to be regarded as composed of a fluctuating population, whose only desire is to make fortunes there, and then return home to England. In my view, the colonies ought to be regarded, and are regarded in this House, as great English-speaking communities, destined at no distant day to rival the greatness of England herself, and to spread over all the world the language, the civilization, the laws, and the customs of England. I do not think that the allegiance and affections of our colonial fellow-subjects will be conciliated when they are spoken of as a "fluctuating population," here to-day and gone tomorrow, and amply represented by those among them who are able to leave the colonies and come over to England. Well, Sir, it is for these reasons that this change of title is recommended—for political considerations which are to be scrupulously avoided in the debates in this House, and at the risk of alienating the goodwill of our fellow-subjects in the colonies. These are, as far as I know, the reasons alleged for the change in the style and title of Her Majesty. I know we may be told that this is not a change, but simply an addition. I do not want to quarrel about words; but I maintain that whether it be an addition or a change depends entirely upon the question of the amount of the addition; and I further maintain that an addition such as this which is proposed does amount to a change. It is perfectly true that an addition may be made to a noble structure which shall in no way change its character, but even make it more harmonious. But if you put to an old English castle a Grecian portico or an Italian façade, I venture to think that there will be a change. My noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) has given Notice of an Amendment which he purposes to move in case of the rejection of that which I shall have the honour to move, and which is intended, I conclude, to meet some of the objections which are felt to the proposed title which Her Majesty is advised to assume. It appears to me that the Amendment of my noble Friend is in part unnecessary, and in part will fail of its object. I think it is unnecessary to tell Her Majesty to "cause precedence on all occasions to be given to the title of Queen over that of Empress." Our worst fears have not extended so far as to imagine that the title of Queen is to be placed as inferior after that of Empress. But when my noble Friend goes on to pray Her Majesty "to confine to Her Majesty's Indian possessions the assumption by members of the Royal Family of the title of Imperial, in addition to that of Royal Highness," it does appear to me that it will be a very poor compliment to our fellow-subjects in India, for whose especial benefit this change is proposed, to tell them that the title of Queen is on all occasions to have precedence over that of Empress, because, in the words of my noble Friend, it involves considerations of "just pride and jealousy" on the part of the people of England. But, even if I could agree that the object which the noble Lord seeks to attain by that Amendment was desirable, I cannot think that his Amendment meets all the circumstances of the case. It is unnecessary to take any such precaution as he proposes to take with regard to the use of this or any other title by Her Majesty. We all know that Her Majesty will use whatever powers may be conferred upon her and whatever titles she may be advised to assume with all consideration for the wishes of her people. But, Sir, I submit that this is a question that is not altogether within the powers even of Her Majesty. Let this title be assumed, and it is not within the powers of Her Majesty herself to limit precisely the conditions under which it may be used. We ought not to forget that this title is being granted, not for to-day or to-morrow, but for years to come; and it is impossible to say, when once the title has been assumed, what may be the future use that maybe made of it. It is not possible to say whether at some future time this Imperial title will not, as has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, as it always, he thinks, has done, overshadow, and ultimately absorb, the ancient and Royal title of the Crown. There, again, Sir, the House has been left with very little—I think, insufficient—information from the Government. How far is it intended to carry this change? Instances innumerable will occur to every Member of this House. How are we in future to describe the estates of the Realm? "King, Lords, and Commons" we know; but are we to have King, Emperor, Lords, and Commons? How is the Proclamation of Her Majesty in Council to run? Is "the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty" to become "the Queen and Empress's Most Excellent Majesty?" Will Proclamations conclude with "God save the Queen!" or "God save the Queen and Empress? "Is the new title to be introduced into the Book of Common Prayer, and are we to pray for "Our Sovereign Lady the Queen and Empress?" These may appear small matters, but I think they are not trivial; and I hold that information on each and all of these is due to the House from the Government. All these things, whether intended or not, make up an amount of change—a great change, which I say is repugnant to the feelings and wishes of the people of this country. I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman into any discussion as to the superiority or otherwise of the title of Empress. It is not because the title of Emperor is superior to that of King or because it is inferior to that of King that the change is contemplated with dislike in this country. The title of Emperor may be a good title for other nations; but the reason why it is disliked by the people of this country is that it is a title other than that of King. King or Queen has been good enough for the people of this country, and if good enough for us we believe it will be good enough for our descendants. As to India, in whose interest it is stated this change is to be made, it is for the Government to show—as they have not shown yet—how the interests of Her Majesty's subject in India will be influenced by the change. It has been by the subjects of our King or Queen that the rule of Her Majesty has been established in India. It is under the rule of the Queen that measures have lately been inaugurated for the promotion of the material prosperity and improvement of that country. It is the son of the Queen who has just been loyally received by Her Majesty's subjects in India; and it is for the Government to show—as they have not shown yet—that the stability of her Empire and the happiness of her subjects are at all involved in the assumption of a title more akin to that of Oriental Princes, whose government she has no desire to imitate and whose traditions she has no wish to revive. As for ourselves, we cannot forget—if the Government forget—that under our Kings and Queens this country has grown to be great and prosperous. We cannot forget that under the present reign the loyalty which the people of this country have always felt to their Sovereign has, I think I may say, grown to a passion. It is under the Queen as the head of the Constitutional system of Government that we have reached a happiness and a renown which we believe has no parallel in the world; and I trust the time will never come when the people of this country will call their Constitutional Sovereign by any other name than that which they have so long known and loved so well. The noble Marquess concluded by moving his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "while willing to consider a measure enabling Her Majesty to make an addition to the Royal Style and Title, which shall include such Dominions of Her Majesty as to Her Majesty may seem meet, this House is of opinion that it is inexpedient to impair the ancient and Royal dignity of the Crown by the assumption of the style and title of Emperor,"—(The Marquess of Hartington,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."


I can very well understand, Sir, that the noble Lord, in taking the course he has felt it his duty to take to-night, must have experienced considerable reluctance in assuming a position painful to anyone, especially painful to one occupying a position like his own. I can understand that he must have felt that it was painful to place himself, even seemingly, in opposition to a measure which, if it is to have the grace it ought to have, should be passed unanimously. I can very well understand the reluctance with which the noble Lord has been obliged to state the reasons which have induced him to take a course which, I think we must infer from many of his observations, would have been against his own judgment—against the judgment which when this measure was first presented to him he was disposed to form—against the judgment, as he confesses, which was formed of it by those who sit in this Assembly, and by those who take a leading part in the formation of public opinion, but whose judgment has been overborne, as he himself described, by what he called an outbreak of spontaneous reluctance on the part of the people, or rather, as I suspect we must call it, by the somewhat less dignified name of a panic. I do not know that there is anything unprecedented in an unreasoning panic. These things we have seen in other matters; but I must say, of all extraordinary instances of panic none has ever appeared to me so unfounded and absurd as the present. If you were to go into those classes of society to which, I suppose, the noble Lord refers, it would seem, from the language reported to be used, that fears were entertained that an attack was to be made on our liberties, and that the Constitution of the country was in dan- ger. A Notice is put on the Notice Paper of this House pointing to the despotic title of Empress as inconsistent with the free Constitution of this country—fears are entertained and anxieties are expressed which the noble Lord must have blushed as he gave vent to them. He said there were fears lest the style of "King, Lords, and Commons" should be changed—there were fears that the form of our Prayer Book should be altered—there were fears lest the name of the Queen, so dear as it has been to the country for so many centuries, and dearer than ever during the last 40 years, should be impaired by the adoption of the title now proposed. Can anything be more absurd? Is it possible that the noble Lord was serious when he made that remark? Is it possible he can suppose that any Ministry could contemplate, or dare to contemplate, the passing of any measure having such an effect? What is the fact? Is it proposed that Her Majesty, in respect of a certain part of her Dominions, and for good and sufficient reasons, which I shall presently state, should have added to her titles one of a local character which will in no way impair the honour of the title she bears, and. Her Majesty will be no less the "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" after adding to that title "Empress of India" than the Prince of Wales is less the Prince of Wales because he adds to that title the Duke of Cornwall? It is difficult to argue against panic and prejudice; but I would entreat the House to consider for a moment how really senseless—if I may use the expression—is the cry that has been raised. But I am told we are not only debarred from taking this step by the reluctance that has been expressed, but also by certain good and sufficient reasons that have been given. The reasons which have been adduced to fortify the position assumed by hon. Gentlemen opposite are unreasonable and are self-condemnatory; but it is because such reasons have been adduced, and seriously re-stated to us to-night by the noble Lord, I think it is important the House should consider what are the consequences to which they will lead. However much we may desire to call in the aid of Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and to have a unanimous vote on this occasion, still, if we are debarred from that aid, if we are to be resisted on Party grounds, or on any other grounds, in the prosecution of a measure which we believe to be in itself right and proper, and possessing in various ways political importance—and especially if we are to be hindered in proceeding with that measure upon grounds which, if they can be sustained, are of the most serious character, we must make up our minds to fight, to argue the question seriously and earnestly, and to consider what are those grounds which are brought in aid by Gentlemen who, I think, are rather at a loss for arguments. There have been several speeches made by right hon. Gentlemen on the bench opposite at different stages of this discussion—speeches that were intended to convey arguments against the adoption of this title; and if it should unfortunately be the opinion of Parliament that the Royal Titles Bill should not be proceeded with, and if it were to be defeated upon the ground which was held in these arguments, I venture to say a most serious blow would be struck at principles which are dear to England and at interests which are vital to England by the acceptance of such principles as those which emanated from that Bench. I refer, not to what has fallen from the noble Lord to-night—though to some extent he has given his sanction to arguments used by Gentlemen near him—but I refer especially to speeches we have heard at different stages of these debates, one of them made by the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe). Are we to abstain from adding to the titles of the Queen a title that will connect her with India lest, forsooth, a time should come when India may be torn from us? If after having made this proposal we draw back—if, after having proposed that our Sovereign should add to the proud list of her titles one that connects her with that great Empire in the East, we draw back and say it is impossible to proceed with the measure because we may some day lose India—what will be thought, I do not say of our power, but of our determination to retain it? For it is the determination of England to maintain the connection which subsists between this country and India. I do not say there are not Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who will not re- pudiate that doctrine; but this I will venture to say—if this measure is defeated and if this title is rejected, that will go forth as one of the reasons. [Mr. Lowe: No, no!] Was the right hon. Gentleman really throwing away his efforts? What did he make that speech for? Did it mean anything? I venture to think there was more truth in the general impression which prevailed after this speech had been made, that the right hon. Gentleman had some such meaning in his mind, than in the ironical cheers with which my reference to it is now greeted. I must refer to another far more dangerous speech delivered by the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) and the peculiar argument which he adduced, and which the noble Lord following in his wake has again brought before us to-night—I mean the argument which he adduced that if you add this title of Empress of India to the titles of our Sovereign you will in some way change the relations between the Queen or the Sovereigns of England and the Princes of India, that you are in some way impairing their political position, and that you are, under the guise of a formal assumption of a title, effecting a serious political revolution. If that is the real meaning of, or if it is a fair inference from, the Bill which is now presented to the House, by all means let it be resisted. But let us be cautious; let us beware that in taking that ground we do not sacrifice the position which England really holds; let us beware we do not recede from the position England assumes and which she legitimately holds as the paramount Power in India. I will not trouble myself by following the noble Lord into what I may call quibbles as to the particular wording of the Preamble of the Bill. These are matters which are to be discussed in Committee. If there is any uncertainty, if there is any doubt as to the propriety of the wording, which I do not believe there is, I will leave it to be discussed in Committee, when we can deal with it satisfactorily. The ground which is taken by my right hon. Friend is this—If you say that the Queen is Empress of India, without some limitation to the territories of the East India Company, you are encroaching on the rights of Princes who are independent of you. That I understand to be the argument, and I say it is not only un- true in fact but most dangerous in tendency, and one most fatal for us to admit. What are these Native Princes? What are their rights? Let me quote what the right hon. Member for Greenwich said, for it is important we should have his words before us— I am under the belief that to this moment there are important Princes and States in India over which we have never assumed dominion, whatever may have been our superiority of strength. We are now going by Act of Parliament to assume that dominion.…Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to assure us that the Princes of India, who hitherto have enjoyed political supremacy, desire to surrender it through the medium of this Bill? The Bill, if it passes into an Act, and the title, if Her Majesty assumes it, will not change by one iota the relations which subsist between the Princes of India and ourselves. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman what Princes and States he refers to, and what he means by that word "dominion." In one sense it is true there are many States in India in which Princes are intrusted with the administration of their own affairs; they govern their own territories and exercise sovereign rights within them; and over those States and over those Princes we, in the stricter sense of the term, cannot be said to exercise, and never claimed to exercise, anything in the nature of dominion or sovereignty; and therefore, when the question is raised whether you may use the term "King" or "Queen" as appropriate for the Sovereign of this country in reference to those States, I would admit that it would be an inappropriate title; because it cannot be said that the Sovereign of this country exercises kingly authority in the States which are so governed by their Native Princes. But do these States occupy an independent position such as Belgium or Holland or Portugal may be said to hold? Are they in the same absolutely free and independent relation to us that any European State is? Nothing of the sort. There is no single State in India which does not acknowledge the British Government as the paramount Power. Let me mention one or two of the incidents of this power. There is no single Native State which has the right of declaring war or of making Treaties. [Mr. John Bright: Treaties with us?] With us? Oh, yes. If I wanted an illustration of the way in which every argument—every word used is twisted into something like an argument, I could not have a better than that interruption. It is really worth while, as I have touched on this point, and as the interruption reminds me of it, to refer to what I formerly said on the question of the Yarkand Treaty. I stated that two or three years ago Lord Northbrook, in sending an Envoy to Yarkand to conclude a Treaty with the ruler of that State, which is not in India, described Her Majesty as the Empress of Hindostan. I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson) asking whether Yarkand was in British India, and I said—"Not at all;" but the inference I drew from the fact stated was this—that Lord Northbrook, the Viceroy of India, sending an Envoy upon an important mission, knew what he was about and had reasons for adopting this particular title, and when you come to look at the Treaty he concluded you see, I think, what one of those reasons was. Lord Northbrook, through Sir Douglas Forsyth, concluded a Treaty with the Ruler of Yarkand, and this is the 9th Article of that Treaty— The rights and privileges enjoyed within the dominions of His Highness the Ameer by British subjects under the Treaty shall extend to the subjects of all Princes and States in India in alliance with Her Majesty the Queen; and if, with respect to any such Prince or State, any other provisions relating to this Treaty or to other matters should be considered desirable, they shall be negotiated through the British Government. There is an illustration of the relations we hold with these various States. They are not absolutely independent. They cannot make war against foreigners or among themselves; they cannot make Treaties except with ourselves; they cannot regulate their succession except with our consent. Does that look like the great independence of which we hear? Why cannot they regulate their succession without our consent? Because we stand in the relation of the paramount Power towards them as what may be called, roughly, feudatory and subordinate States, and because we occupy towards them that position which is most accurately described—of all the titles that I am aware of—by that of Emperor. That was the title which we gave to those who occupied the paramount position in India long ago. That was the title held by the Rulers of Delhi, the Lords Paramount in former days. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No.] I do not mean to say that is the word in the Native language; but it is the word which, if you take up any Indian history of those times, you will find that in nine cases out of ten an Englishman used when he spoke of the Ruler and Emperor of Delhi.


For 100 years the British Government acknowledged the Rulers of Delhi by the title of the Great Mogul.


I will not, Sir, pit my authority on Indian matters against that of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy; but allow me, as an illustration of the use that is made, and authoritatively made, of that title, to read a short extract from a document the authority of which I think will not be denied by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will quote from the celebrated Adoption Despatch, written by Lord Canning when the right hon. Member for Greenwich was a Member of the Government, to all the Chiefs of India, and which is often held as the Magna Charta of those Chiefs. In paragraph 18, Lord Canning speaks of the Emperors of Delhi. Lord Canning is recommending to Her Majesty's Government that he should be authorized by the Government to issue a general Sunnud to the States of India, authorizing them to adopt according to their own customs; and he gives these reasons in his despatch to Her Majesty's Government— A time so opportune for the step can never occur again. The last vestiges of the Royal House of Delhi, from which, for our own convenience, we had long been content to accept a vicarious authority, have been swept away. The last pretender for the representation of the Peishwah 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 Sovereignty of England which has never existed before, and which is not only felt but eagerly acknowledged by the Chiefs. That was the proposal made by Lord Canning to the Government of which the right hon. Member for Greenwich was a leading Member. [Mr. LOWE was understood to say that the words of the despatch were, "Royal House of Delhi."] Every term is caught up; the very epithet "royal" is caught up. That epithet we may discuss afterwards; but the proposition of the right hon. Member for Greenwich is not directed against any particular term, such as "Royal," or "Imperial," but against the use of the term "India." That is, he says, the assumption of an authority we have no right to assume. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Quote the words.] I am sure I do not want to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman's words. He made it an objections—if it is not an objection I do not know how to deal with it—he made it an objection to our taking this title that apparently we were going by Act of Parliament to assume a dominion which we do not now possess. I do not wish to weary the House by going through the restrictions which you put upon these Native States, or rather through the details of the relations in which they stand to the paramount Power, but I may mention one, for it is very important. I find that in these independent States we legislate for our own subjects within the territory of those States. We passed an Act in the year 1869 declaring that— The Governor General of India shall have power, at meetings for the purpose of making laws and regulations, to make laws and regulations for all British subjects of Her Majesty within the Dominions of Princes and States in India in alliance with Her Majesty, whether in the service of the Government of India or otherwise. That was a remarkable instance, and I could mention others. But let me ask the House to consider this. What happened after the Mutiny? What was the course which we pursued towards those Princes who were said to have been ruling their own States? We put some of them on their trial. On what charge? On the charge of disloyalty. Disloyalty to whom? Disloyalty, of course, in our view of the matter, to the paramount Power; but in the view of my right hon. Friend opposite, it was nothing of the sort. I am sorry to have detained the House by entering much into this point. But I have felt it necessary to do so—not that it is a matter that we would have desired to bring forward or to press on the House, but we are driven to it. Nothing could have been further from the intentions of Her Majesty's Government—nothing, I am sure, could be further from the heart or the feelings of Her Majesty—than taking any step which would even appear adverse to the rights of the Princes of India. On the contrary, this was intended as a gracious and purely complimentary act, which we never supposed would be made an occasion of strife and animosity. It is not our fault. We have not raised these points. They have been raised by others; and they are pressed—weak as they are, dangerous as they are—in order that the panic and the prejudice may not seem to be without some foundation. There is another argument pressed into the service by right hon. Gentlemen opposite to which I give almost as little weight; because I feel that it is not a sound argument; that it has no real foundation; that it has been an afterthought called in in aid. I mean the argument with regard to the colonies. The case of the colonies differs wholly from the case of India. The colonies are always with us, and all we have is theirs. There has been no change in their political relations to us such as there has been in the relations between England and India. What was the occasion for the alteration, if you like so to call it, but the addition as we call it, in the title of the Sovereign in regard to India? It was because a change was made in the relations between England and India, by which India has been brought into new and direct relations with the Sovereign of England. It was meet and right that there should be a corresponding addition made to the titles of the Sovereign to mark the change by which India was brought under her direct rule. But there has been no such change in respect to the colonies. The colonists are men who have gone out from among us—men of our own stock and kindred; and there is no relation between the proposal that Her Majesty should take a title directly marking her connection with our Indian Empire as the Sovereign Paramount of the whole of India and any proposal that may be made in regard to the colonies. But there are many who, not going the length of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, or arguing that we ought not to assume any Indian title at all, yet say—"By all means let Her Majesty take a title to mark her dominion in India, only do not let it be the title of Empress." Well, in the first place, what title is it to be? [Several hon. MEMBERS: Queen.] I have already shown that, for one reason, the title of Queen would not accurately represent the relations which our Sovereign bears to the States which are governed by their own Native Princes. It means at once too much and too little: too much, because it would seem to imply that she had some direct concern in the government of such a State as that of Indore or Gwalior; too little, because it would fail to convey to the Indian mind that which you wish to convey—that is to say, that Her Majesty occupies the position of paramount Power in India. Now, when you are dealing with the question as an Indian question, when you are proposing that Her Majesty should assume a title that will be appropriate to mark her position in India, I must ask the House to consider whether we should pay more attention to the evidence of England or to the evidence of India itself on this matter. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: There is no evidence.] No evidence! I would like to ask—Is it not some evidence that the Governor General of India himself should have thought it necessary and proper, and right, to put into so solemn a document as that to which I have referred the title of Empress of Hindostan? I do not, however, rely only upon that. I venture to say that you would find, from many Indian newspapers and from Indian conversation, that the title "Empress" is one that for a long time past has been trembling upon the lips of the English-speaking portion of Her Majesty's subjects in India. We are told by one hon. Gentleman in his Amendment that, inasmuch as the title of Empress could not be accurately translated into any Native language, it does not signify what sort of title you give to Her Majesty, provided you translate it into a sufficiently dignified Indian or Mahomedan title. According to him, the title might be Grand Duchess or anything else, provided you translate it by a sufficiently dignified Native term. The noble Lord himself told us just now that, after all, this is a title we should have to translate, and that upon that translation everything depended. But does the noble Lord or do hon. Gentlemen suppose that the educated and leading people of India do not understand English as well as we do ourselves? Does he suppose that they do not know the shades of difference between one title and another, and that they do not understand why it is that we do not like the adoption of a title which they have marked out as being the proper one? But it is said they have not so marked it out. It happens that two or three addresses were presented to Her Majesty some years ago upon the happy recovery of the Prince of Wales from illness. I have addresses here from the ex-King of Oude, from the Rajah of Dholapore, and others. The title of Empress is used in them all. But I have also an address—one that deserves attention—from another Native Prince, whose distinguished position and high character have recently been prominently acknowledged—I mean the Maharajah of Jeypore, who was selected by the Governor General to sit upon that most important inquiry in the Baroda case, and who was selected because he was the representative of one of the most ancient and distinguished families in India. It is written in English; it is not a translation, it is the original address. It was sent in the year 1872, and it begins in this way—"To Her most Gracious Majesty Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Colonies, Empress of Hindostan." I will not attempt to weary the House by going further into this question. I think I have submitted some facts which ought to give us grounds for believing that this excitement, which I have called an unreasoning panic, has been, and will be, found to be destitute of any real foundation. I think that the arguments that have been brought forward against the course that has been proposed are not only unsound and baseless, but are also most dangerous to be put forward, and would, if acted upon, be fatal to the best interests of India. Those who gave advice to Her most Gracious Majesty had under their consideration the fact that the original transfer of India to the direct government of the Crown was still incomplete for want of the adoption of a suitable title. They thought that the auspicious occasion of the visit of the Prince of Wales to India, which has called forth most hearty and ardent expressions of loyalty and devotion from the Princes of India, was an occasion on which they should advise Her Majesty to adopt a suitable title with reference to India. They thought that they might at least trust to the personal confidence which the people of India would feel in the character of Her Majesty, whom they had known and loved so long, that they, at all events, would not misunderstand the meaning of the step that was to be taken. I do not believe they have misunderstood it. I believe the people of India will feel that this is a compliment paid to them; and that it will rejoice the hearts of a great number of them; that it will carry satisfaction to the minds of all those who know what British rule has done and still does for them; and that they will indeed be disappointed if, through prejudice here, however created, they shall be deprived of the honour and advantage which they may anticipate from the step which we have advised Her Majesty to take.


said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, and he profoundly agreed with him, that this was a measure of such a character that it ought, if possible, to have been passed unanimously; but how was it that, in the same breath, he told the House that the measure which the Government had introduced had created throughout the country an unreasoning panic? ["Oh!"] Well, but had he not said so? [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: No.] Who was it, then, that was the subject of this unreasoning panic? You could not have unanimity if persons were panic-stricken. The right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned how many were subject to unreasonable panic; at all events, a considerable portion of the people, and, as far as he (Sir William Harcourt) could judge, the greater portion of the Press of this country were subject to what the right hon. Gentleman called unreasonable panic. There was another thing they had to take care of, something much more serious than an unreasoning panic in England, and that was one in India. He did not know that the right hon. Gentleman improved the matter by his Scriptural allusions. The right hon. Gentleman said the colonies stood in a different position from India. He said they might say, or we might say to them—"Thou art always with us." What did he mean by that? It appeared to him (Sir William Harcourt) that the right hon. Gentleman was representing India as the prodigal and the colonies as the faithful sons. What did he mean by saying that the colonies stood in a totally different position from India? Whatever else the right hon. Gentleman had shown, he had certainly demonstrated this—that the Bill involved considerations of profound Indian policy. The right hon. Gentleman had not attended to the warning which the Prime Minister gave the House the other day, not to discuss Indian policy in connection with this measure; for he had gone into the matter at great length. He (Sir William Harcourt) believed one of the most important aspects of this measure was its Indian policy. It was that policy which was its whole justification, for it had no justification in English policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said truly that these were very dangerous questions, and it was for that reason he (Sir William Harcourt) deplored they had been raised by this Bill. But these questions must be raised when the Government told the House the Bill was necessary for their policy in India, and the Government must answer the question—"What is that policy?" The responsibility with reference to the raising of these questions rested with those who had forced this Bill upon an unwilling people. He would not shrink from meeting the right hon. Gentleman upon the question of Indian policy. If the Government had told the House that this was an Indian policy which was approved by the natural advisers of the country and the Crown—by the Governor General in Council and the Council of India in England—it would have been accepted; but the Prime Minister said the questions of policy were so dangerous that the House must not discuss them, and the Government could not lay any information before the House on so difficult a subject as this. And then came the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did give them some evidence—and what was it? He talked of newspapers and conversations in India, of the name of "Empress" trembling on the lips of the people, and of some old addresses from the ex-King of Oude and the Rajah of Jeypore; but he gave them no evidence that that proposal was desired by the people or approved by the men of experience who compose the Indian Council. The policy of the Bill was to proclaim, in a more definite manner than it ever had been proclaimed before, the supremacy of the Crown in India. In the Act of 1858 the word India was used in a restricted sense; but in this Bill it was used without restriction, and meant the whole peninsula. They must, therefore, consider the position of the Native Princes, who were included in the designation. They were not feudatories, they were not subjects—in one sense they were, and in another sense they were not, independent Powers. They did not occupy with regard to the English Sovereign the relative position that the Khedive of Egypt held with regard to the Sultan, because whereas we dealt with them by Treaty, the Sultan dealt with the Khedive by Firman. He fully concurred in the assertion that they were not altogether independent Powers like Switzerland and Denmark, and did not occupy the position of the independent German States Saxony and Bavaria. Neither could they be all placed exactly upon the same footing, because they differed not only in their various positions among themselves, but also in their relations with the English Government. On the whole, if he were to attempt to describe their position as regarded England in a single phrase, he should be inclined to call them "protected allies." In a paper which the Chancellor of the Exchequer read, Lord Canning referred to "our alliance with these Princes." He perfectly admitted that they were under our substantial control; but asserted that the policy of this country had always been to respect and preserve their nominal independence. Now, that question of nominal independence was the material question they had to deal with in connection with this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in announcing the intended journey of the Prince of Wales to India last year, said that amongst these great populations there were at least 90 reigning Sovereigns—that was the phrase which the First Minister of the Crown had used in reference to those Indian Princes. The manner of treating these Native Princes of India was one of the most dangerous and difficult questions of Indian policy. He would read a description of what their situation actually was according to the high authority of the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). The hon. Baronet in his valuable book, from which he had derived much information upon Indian matters, thus described the position of the Indian Princes— Indeed, in all our transations with Native States, however we may exercise real power, we have never yet in form assumed the Imperial superiority of our predecessors. We still treat with small Native States as in name our equals, and make little distinction between great Princes, rebellious Governors, and petty Chiefs, as if all alike were absolute and unlimited Sovereigns. Even when forcing measures upon them we do it in the form of a Treaty between two great Governments, while many measures which should be forced upon them are not insisted upon, because we only violate their independence in political necessities. It would be much better formally to assume the feudal superiority of India.…..It is only in this way that we can hope gradually to extinguish the Native States, which consume so large a portion of the revenues of the country," &c. That he believed to be an accurate description of the existing position and treatment by us of the Native Princes of India, and that was a policy of a certain school of whom the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy disapproved, thinking it would be better, as he said, formally to assume the feudal superiority of India. And that as he understood it, was the object of this Bill—to assume formally the superiority of India, because, as the hon. Baronet said—"It is only in this way that we can hope gradually to extinguish the Native States which consume so large a portion of the revenues of the country." [Mr. SMOLLETT: Hear, hear!] Doubtless the hon. Member supported the Bill on that ground. [Mr. SMOLLETT: I only cheered in derision.] Hon. Members on his (Sir William Harcourt's) side of the House were so accustomed to the derision of the hon. Member for Cambridge that they really did not know when he was actuated by another motive. The statement to which he had referred showed that in touching this subject we were dealing with very important questions. This formal assumption of the feudal superiority of India was a matter with which we had not hitherto attempted to deal, and he could not see the object of attempting to deal with it at the present time, unless we proposed by this Bill to inaugurate a new Indian policy. ["No!"] Well, then, if we did not intend to inaugurate a new Indian policy, why had the Bill been introduced? Although as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had truly said, these Princes were not substantially independent of us, we had hitherto respected their susceptibilities and had made Treaties—seven volumes of Trea- ties—with them, and had ceded territories to them "in full sovereignty;" and why should we now "formally assume the feudal supremacy over them?" In the Proclamation by the Queen to the Princes, Chiefs, and people of India in 1858, on the transfer of the Government of that country from the East India Company to the British Crown, the language used was as follows:— We hereby announce to the Native Princes of India that all Treaties and Engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honorable East India Company are by Us accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained; and We look for the like observance on their part. That was not the language of a Sovereign towards her subjects, nor, indeed, even of a Lord Paramount towards his vassals. The document then proceeded thus— We desire no extension of Our present territorial possessions; and while We will permit no aggression upon Our Dominions or Our Rights to be attempted with impunity, We shall sanction no encroachment on those of others. We shall respect the Rights, Dignity, and Honour of Native Princes as Our own; and We desire that they, as well as Our own Subjects, should enjoy that Prosperity and that social Advancement which can only be secured by internal Peace and good Government. We hold Ourselves bound to the Natives of Our Indian Territories by the same obligations of Duty which bind Us to all Our other Subjects; and those Obligations, by the Blessing of Almighty God, We shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil. Firmly relying Ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of Religion, We disclaim alike the Right and the Desire to impose our Convictions on any of Our Subjects. We declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure that none be in any wise favored, none molested or disquieted by reason of their Religious Faith or Observances; but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the Law; and We do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under Us, that they abstain from all interference with the Religious Belief or Worship of any of Our Subjects, on pain of Our highest Displeasure. And it is Our further Will that, so far as may be, Our Subjects, of whatever Race or Creed, be freely and impartially admitted to Offices in Our Service, the Duties of which they may be qualified, by their education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge. We know, and respect, the feelings of attachment with which the Natives of India regard the Lands inherited by them from their Ancestors; and We desire to protect them in all Rights connected therewith, subject to the equitable demands of the State; and We will that generally, in framing and administering the Law, due regard be paid to the ancient Rights, Usages, and Customs of India, The nominal independence, therefore, of the Native Princes was respected in that Proclamation. It had been said that it was in contemplation at the time that document was issued to assert the feudal superiority of the Crown over the Indian Princes; then why had not that course been adopted? It was not adopted then because it was not thought prudent so soon after the Mutiny to offend the susceptibilities of the Native Princes. He contended that the Government ought to have shown the House that the Native Princes desired this change; but the Prime Minister, with the mystery which characterized the whole transaction, said it would not be safe for the Government to reveal to the House what the Viceroy of India or any of their correspondents had told them on this subject. It was possible the Government might raise an unreasoning panic in India, just as they said an unreasoning panic had been raised in England, and that would be a far more dangerous thing. Dealing with the new title of Empress which it was proposed that the Queen should adopt, he ventured to think that nothing could be more dangerous or more unfortunate than the choice of a title which would make Her Majesty appear in any way to represent the Empire of the Moguls. What were the associations connected with the Mogul Empire? The existing States of India were largely founded upon the overthrow of that Power, and had revolted from it in consequence of its religious persecutions and its tyranny. Togo to the people of India and say the Queen was the representative of the Empire of Delhi was as much as going to the people of the Low Countries and telling them that their Sovereign was the representative of Philip of Spain. Nothing could be more unwise or unsound in policy than to endeavour to represent to the people of India, no matter under what form or name, that the Queen was the representative of a Monarchy or an Empire which they had rebelled against successfully, and which was the emblem of a creed which was extremely oppressive at times; it seemed to him to be the most unstatesmanlike policy that it was possible to conceive. He doubted very much whether it was wise to attempt to masquerade under Eastern titles and manners at all. He had read a remarkable chapter in a book by a man who knew India well—Sir James Mackintosh—who, speaking of this very question of the Empire of the Mogul, said— Your strength, in India is dependent mainly upon the distinctiveness of your Western civilization. The black coat of Europe has founded a much stronger and much more permanent dynasty than ever was established by the turban. He (Sir William Harcourt) thought that they had far better keep to their own title rather than attempt to travesty the Empire of the Mogul. Sir James Mackintosh also once used the very remarkable phrase that "it was a very unsafe thing to have a Sultanized Governor General;" and in his (Sir William Harcourt's) opinion it was not a wise thing to endeavour even in India to Sultanize the Crown. Therefore, as far as the Indian part of this case went, he ventured to say it was not true. It seemed to him to be pregnant with all sorts of uncertainties and dangers. Why could not the Government leave well alone? The Queen had been and was powerful, honoured, and respected in India; and the Prince of Wales as her heir had been received with quite as great honour as if he had been the son of an Emperor. Why raise this question? But having raised it, why did the Government not come to the House of Commons and to the country and tell them that they had had adequate advice, and that they had consulted those who could have given confidence to the country that the policy they were pursuing in this matter was safe and prudent? The Government came forward and refused the House all information. They came with references to Indian newspapers and scraps from the ex-King of Oude. He regarded this Bill from this point of view as one of the most dangerous measures that had ever been produced.[Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might laugh. He hoped that he might be mistaken; but, in his opinion, to let off these political fireworks in a powder magazine was not wise. Well, if the Indian ground upon which this Bill was founded was gone, what else was there to justify it? The Government did not bring the Bill in, he supposed, to please the English people. If they did, they had not succeeded. Whatever hon. Gentlemen on the other side might say, those sitting on the Treasury Bench, who were well in- formed, knew very well that the repugnance to this measure was growing every day, nor would it be stopped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that it was an unreasonable panic and a foolish prejudice. It had been said that the Press had changed its opinion on this subject. Yes, but why? Because there had set in so strong and steady a current of public opinion against the Bill, and that was the reason of the change of opinion on the part of the Press. Why was it that this parvenu title had offended the pride of an ancient people? Why, but because they feared they might lose the name of Queen which they had so long honoured and revered, and that it might be ultimately absorbed in that of Empress. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was not a change, it was only an addition. He (Sir William Harcourt) thought that his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington), with his architectural illustration, had very well disposed of that. If he might add to his noble Friend's admirable illustration another, he would say that if they were to build the Pavilion of Brighton on to the Abbey of Westminster, or to put up the Pagoda at Kew on the Chapel of Henry VII., or take those old and venerable and worm-eaten chairs, which had no "jewel except the shapeless stone of Scone," and trick them out in the guise of the Peacock Throne of Delhi, they would have made an addition, but they would also have made a change. They would have made a change that would not be agreeable to the sentiment and sympathies of the English people. The English people feared that this addition would cause a change. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had laboured to show that the title of Emperor was not a higher title than that of King. He looked out the word "Emperor" in Johnson's Dictionary, where, by the way, it was spelt with a "u"—he did not know whether the Government intended to spell it with a "u" or not—and he found that Dr. Johnson, who probably conveyed the popular idea of Emperor, said—"Emperour—a monarch of title and dignity superior to a King: as, the Emperour of Germany." And here he must take the liberty to differ from the right hon. Gentleman who said that the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was not superior in point of precedence to the Kings of France and Spain. He believed it was an indisputable proposition that the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire was admitted by all Europe to take precedence. That was the reason why in all the Monarchies where the two titles existed, the title of Emperor had, sooner or later, absorbed the title of King. That was what was feared. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government quoted Spenser to show this was not an un-English phrase; but it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman's quotation proved distinctly that it was, because if Spenser tried to introduce it 300 years ago and it had not obtained yet, it showed that it was an exotic that would not grow in English soil. No man had a higher respect than he had for the right hon. Gentleman's literary genius; but he hoped and thought he would not succeed in acclimatizing a word with which Spenser had failed. The right hon. Gentleman had attributed the use of that word in The Faery Queene to some suggestion by Raleigh; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman did that great gentleman an injustice, for there were some fine lines of Sir Walter Raleigh, addressed to the "Faery Queene," in which, if he had invented the word "Empress," he might have employed it himself. But that was not the way in which he spoke of Elizabeth in a fine Alexandrine line— Behold her princely mind aright, and write thy Queen anew. They did not know Elizabeth by the title of "Empress." From their boyish days they had spoken and thought of her as the great "Queen Bess," as they knew one of her successors by the name of the "good Queen Anne," and he hoped that it was by such names that the Sovereigns of England from generation to generation would be alone known to the English people. He believed that the English nation would rather see their Sovereign the first and most ancient Queen, than the last and the newest Empress. They might say, "What's in a name?" In these things there was everything in a name. Association and sympathy gathered round these ancient names, and it was these things which constituted a national spirit, and the continuity of national life. Patriotism and loyalty, sentiments the strongest and the best in their nature, were made up of these ancient associations. It was for these things that the "great men hare been proud to live, and good men have dared to die." Did they think they would not alter the title of the Crown if they were to add the name of "Protector" or "President" to it? Did they think the case of "Emperor" differed in any respects from those names? Did they think that if they were to call that House a "Senate" or "Congress" they would not alter the associations connected with it? Was the Speech with which Parliament was opened to be no longer the "Queen's Speech," or was it to be "The Queen and the Empress's Speech?" ["No."] He was glad to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say "No." He would ask whether the appeals from India, which were to be heard by the Judicial Committee, would be appeals to "the Empress in Council?" Otherwise, how was her supremacy to be maintained? Those things were what the English people feared and what they disliked. The English people were of a noble and a simple temper, and they preferred the substance of ancient greatness to the glitter of modern names. And now he would venture to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, was this a Conservative measure? They were all Conservatives on the question of the Throne, and, in his opinion, the Conservative policy on that matter was, that the Crown should be brought as little under discussion as possible. But whose fault was it that it was discussed? It was not theirs (the Opposition). [Cries of "What?"] Gentlemen opposite exclaimed "What!" Did they imagine that a Bill of this kind, which was said to raise such questions of Indian policy as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had raised, was to be brought into the House and not discussed? Did they think that a Bill which had raised the feeling which this Bill had raised throughout the country was not to be discussed? What did they think the country would think of them if they declined to discuss it? It was the business of the House of Commons to discuss, and it was the safety of the country that they should discuss the questions that agitated the public mind. He thought Conservative policy was not unnecessarily to agitate questions which affected the fundamental institutions of the country. Why had the Government agitated this question? The right hon. Gentleman talked of his noble Friend acting against his own judgment. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that all the persons who sat on his own side of the House approved of this measure? There were many who would vote with him that night who regretted as much as they on that (the Liberal) side of the House did that this Bill had been brought forward, and the right hon. Gentleman knew it perfectly well. He (Sir William Harcourt) had very often heard objections taken to what was called a sensational policy, he objected to a sensational policy; but there was a thing he objected to still more, and that was melodramatic legislation in matters which affected the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government concluded his remarks the other night by saying that this was a measure which would "add to the splendour of Her Majesty's Throne and the security of her Empire. "He believed that the right hon. Gentleman was profoundly mistaken. He believed that was not the opinion of the English people. They did not think so meanly of the splendour of that Throne that they should suppose that its ancient grandeur and its simple majesty could derive fresh lustre from outlandish gewgaw and tawdry decorations; and as to the security for her Empire, if it were not too deeply rooted in the traditions of the past and the confidence of the nation, he believed that Her Majesty's Government would have gone far to shake it by this inauspicious proceeding.


said, he regretted that political Party feeling should have been lashed into fury on this question by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Many persons had expressed their surprise that this measure had been thought necessary, because they were under the impression that Her Majesty was already Empress of India, and that this was only a more formal declaration of the fact. The question, therefore, arose how this change came about. It occurred because there was a persistent refusal on the part of some in that House, and on the part of a large portion of the Press, and a great number of people in the country to look at the question from an Indian point of view. Until a few years ago India was ruled by a company of merchants, the directors of which were elected by the shareholders, and the change which transferred their rule to the Crown was admitted to be acceptable to the people of India. Many of the great Chieftains of India had the power of life and death in their own dominions. It was therefore very natural that Her Majesty and her advisers should think that she ought publicly to take some title which would show to the Native population that she was proud of that position, and which would give them a guarantee that she would fulfil the duties and the rights which it involved. Then came the question as to the title which would most adequately express the nature of her rule. In India all were agreed that it should be a title expressing the greatest and highest power which the wealth of the Indian language could afford. It must be a title showing that Her Majesty was at the head of a despotic Government and Suzerain over Chiefs who had the power of life and death in their dominions. When they looked for the translation of that word into English, it was found that there was only one word by which it could be rendered, and that was "Empress." The question then arose how that title affected the relations of Her Majesty with her people as the Constitutional Ruler of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The answer was that it left those relations entirely untouched, and no other answer could be given if this new title were regarded as it ought to be, exclusively from an Indian point of view. The House had been told that it ought to feel a sense of degradation that our government of India was despotic, and that we had not been able to give the people of India a constitutional government. Such a government was not, however, a sovereign specific for all nations, and it was opposed to the innate instincts, traditions, and sympathies of the people of India. The attempt to foist a constitutional government like that of England upon India would be, indeed, a silly and cruel experiment, which would never be attempted by that House. The Queen was at the head of the Constitution of this country, and therefore her title here was Queen; but in India she was at the head of a despotic Government, and therefore her title must be Empress.


said, he took part in the debate with considerable reluctance. If the information given to the House to-night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been given when the Bill was introduced, it would have removed many of his (Sir Edward Colebrooke's) objections; but when a high-flown appeal was made to the House by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), he thought that was an occasion on which Her Majesty's Government might have given some disavowal of any claim so wild and extravagant as that mentioned by the hon. Member. When he (Sir Edward Colebrooke) had made an appeal to the Government on the subject the answer he received was, that the Princes of India earnestly desired that the Queen should assume an addition to her title; but it was never until to-day, when it had been forced upon the Government by repeated challenges from the Opposition side of the House, that the Government disavowed the extravagant claim of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, that Her Majesty should be declared by this Bill to assume the position and power of the Great Mogul. He held that the Queen of England's rights in India rested upon a greater and better foundation—on a better title, more honestly acquired, and better administered in every way than that of the Native Princes. Her authority was far more effective and far more widely extended, and her supremacy extended over every inch of that vast Empire. What more than that, then, was to be desired? The Government had up to that time laid no information or documents before the House which warranted the statement that it was the desire of the people and Princes of India that such a title should be taken by the Sovereign. It should be remembered that they had Treaties with the Native Princes of India, in all of which we recognized their sovereignty over their respective States; that they should be absolute Rulers in their respective States; and that British jurisdiction should never be enforced. It was stated of them that they wished to be reduced to tributaries of the British Crown; but until that matter was cleared up he, for one, must object to any new relations being created such as those implied by this Bill. Why introduce such a measure at all? No new legislation was required.


I entirely deny that. ["Order!"]


The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of addressing the House, and it is better, therefore, not to cause any interruption.


said, he must repeat that no new legislation was required. A great shock was occasioned to the British authority in India at the time of the Indian Mutiny, but that, at all events, did this good—it satisfied the people that they were not anxious to imitate the policy of the Moguls. This matter, he thought, should be fairly understood, and he submitted to the Government that the Bill was nothing more than a mere compliment, and appealed to them to insert words in it to make that quite clear. There was the question of sentiment and the question of policy, and he went to a considerable degree on the former. He regarded with uneasiness and alarm the new title that Her Majesty was to be invited to assume. But it was not merely a question of sentiment; there was reason involved in it, and he deprecated anything that would show that Her Majesty held her rights in any one portion of her dominions in a different way from what she held them in other places. He did not see why there should be a distinction in one place any more than in another. It was as Queen of England that she enjoyed her sovereignty over India, and he saw no reason why the simple English title of "Victoria, Queen" should not be adopted. It would soon become naturalized in India. In fact, a friend of his had seen a rupee circulated by the Rajah of Cutch on which the name of the Queen was rendered letter for letter. They might be content with simple emblems of authority and not indulge in hyperbole. He urged the Government to withdraw the Bill; and if there was no other reason against the withdrawal of the Bill than that alleged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Bill ought to be withdrawn at once. To use the words of an Eastern poet, let them "withdraw the foot of contentment within the skirt of safety."


I heard with regret, Mr. Speaker, the term "unreasoning panic" used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the Bill now before the House. My own belief is that, as regards the assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India, there is no panic, reasoning, or unreasoning, in this country. I believe that the great mass of the people, beyond a vague belief that it may please Her Majesty, have no feeling in the matter. Surely, if excitement, and agitation prevailed, numerous Petitions would be laid upon that Table. I should like to know how many persons have troubled themselves to petition. No one can have walked through the streets of this great metropolis for the last few years without observing a terse and vigorous appeal written on very many walls, the question asked has been "Who is Griffiths?" that question is now for ever answered. He is the Rev. Somebody Griffiths, who petitions from Derby against the Queen becoming Empress of India. I have obtained evidence in this matter from a person best qualified in my opinion to judge; I have received an intimation from a gentleman, formerly holding very high rank among the Princes of India, the son of the Ruler of a vast territory in the North-west, who tells me in the most emphatic language that the title of Empress, without any Indian or Mahomedan translation, will give great satisfaction to the Natives of that thickly populated Empire. No one word can possibly convey to the minds of Natives speaking 22languages the idea of sovereign power such as the Queen possesses. But I would take, Sir, a larger and broader view of this question. Every one must have observed the vast annexations of territory by Russia in Central Asia, and in the half-civilized districts bordering upon our Indian possessions. To-day is announced the fact that Russia has absorbed Kokhand, and added that territory to the wide-stretching dominions of the Czar. In my opinion, the assumption of the title of Empress should have a most salutary effect on the nations bordering upon India, and also upon Russia in her apparently continuous onward march. By assuming the title of Empress and the direct sovereignty of India, the Queen tells those Powers that the British hold upon Hindostan is intended to endure. No part of that territory must be ceded; for it cannot be ceded without endangering the vitality of our own Empire. Had it not already been the hereditary device of an Euro- pean Potentate, I would suggest as a motto for the Empire of India the words "Here I am; here I remain," "J'y suis; J'y reste." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford City (Sir William Harcourt) has asked us whether we would substitute the ancient chair of state, containing the Runic stone brought from Scotland by Edward, for the bedizened Peacock throne of the Emperors of Delhi: his illustration seems to me to be one that can easily be reverted. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suppose that the Queen at her coronation sits upon that chair as it now is, and may be seen in Westminster Abbey? No! the chair on that august occasion is covered with purple velvet, and so much gold as can be laid upon it; but the Stone of Rule is there! So will it be with the throne of the Empress of India. So long as you hold India by the strong hand; so long as you have there the weapons of civilization; above all, so long as you keep implicit faith with races that justly mistrust each other, so long will the reality of your power remain. No matter by what title you may call the Sovereign of India, you will find that you hold the power over that vast race, not only by your sabres and your rifles, but by the type of truth, the word of an Englishman.


speaking on behalf, at all events, of some Members of the Home Rule Party, with whom he had conversed on the subject, said, they felt constrained to support the Amendment of the noble Marquess below him; and if that Amendment should be agreed to, it would not preclude the passing of a Bill which would enable Her Majesty to assume a new title in connection with India; but his feeling was that the assumption of the title "Empress" would be at variance with the Constitution which had for centuries existed in this country. The origin of the title Emperor was well known. It was given by the Army, and the Emperors acted upon their own free will, and not as the Representatives of the people. The career of Empires, even where they had one or two Chambers to consult, was not a fair precedent for the Queen of England to follow. What was the Constitution of Austria, and what was the history of the Constitutional Imperial Government of France. There was formerly despotic rule in India. That was before England obtained power there. It was said that our rule there was absolute, and that was true; but it was the Government of the Queen, guided by the Lords and Commons. To liken such a Government to that of Russia or Austria before the recent reforms in those countries were granted would be a great mistake. The rule of England over India Parliament was responsible for. The Queen governed there with the assistance of the Lords and Commons, and therefore to give Her Majesty the title of Empress of India would be a mistake. If at any time India should be governed constitutionally and in accordance with the wishes of the people, expressed through their Representative Bodies, the adoption of this title would be at variance with such a future. Some doubts had been expressed whether we could hold India; but if our permanent rule in that country was to be kept up, it would not be by perpetuating absolute institutions, but by keeping before our eyes the hope that India would govern herself as this country governed herself. On one of the earliest evenings when this Bill was before the House his hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government whether the accession of Her Majesty to any new title with regard to India would be celebrated by a concession on a subject very dear to the people of Ireland. To that Question the right hon. Gentleman replied that the accession of title, on which the concession of grace was contingent, had not taken place, and that the time had not come for asking the Question. There had never been a statesman that had occupied the position now held by the present Prime Minister on the side of the House where the right hon. Gentleman sat less disposed to give an answer intended to be a bid for a vote than was the right hon. Gentleman himself. Before the Question was answered, he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had some doubts as to the propriety of the occasion for asking such a question; and he feared that the answer which might be made to it would place him and his Friends in an awkward position with regard to the construction which might be put upon their votes upon this Bill. Under the circumstances, he was glad that an opportunity had been presented by the noble Marquess which removed every difficulty, and left Irish Members to act upon their own convictions. If the Amendment should be accepted it would leave open to Her Majesty to adopt any title which she pleased, and therefore he should vote for it.


remarked that the Amendment of the noble Marquess had placed the House in a somewhat awkward position, as it embodied a proposition which no one on that side of the House could deny—namely, that it was inexpedient to impair the ancient and Royal dignity of the Crown. He was under the impression that that dignity would not be impaired. He was of opinion that as we had obtained India when the Crown bore the title of King and Queen, we might have gone on governing India under that nomenclature. No serious objection to the proposed title was taken when the Bill was down for a second reading, and therefore the title had been virtually accepted by the Opposition. The time had passed when the opposition to the measure should have taken place. If the opposition had been raised upon the second reading it would have had his sympathy; but now he must give his support to the Government. He sincerely hoped that there would not now be a division, but that the Bill would receive the unanimous sanction of the House. As the Bill enacted no title, it was yet possible that the Royal Proclamation might not set forth the title of Empress, even though the Prime Minister had indicated this as the title which would be assumed. Even, however, if the title of Empress were adopted, it would be a local title, confined to the Queen's dominions in India. The opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite might have changed, and also the opinion of the London Press. But he did not think that the opinion of the London Press was the opinion of the country on this question. He represented a town (Preston) which was likely to have a strong feeling upon the question, if such a feeling existed anywhere; but he had received no communication against the title of Empress, while only one Petition had been presented to the House against the title, and that was signed by only one solitary individual. He could not therefore think that the opinion of the country was against going on with the Bill. Under these circumstances, and believing that the proper time for absolute oppo- sition to the Bill had gone by, he should resist the Amendment.


said, he was anxious, seeing that the question related to India, and that he had formerly had an official connection with the Government of that country, to make a few observations upon it. He hoped the day was far distant when Indian questions would ever become questions of Party in that House, and if he voted for the Amendment, he could assure the House that he would have voted for it much more cheerfully if it had come from the other side, so as to divest it even of the possibility of possessing a Party aspect. It seemed to him, amidst the choice of difficulties in which they were placed, that the Amendment opened the door to the only solution that could be satisfactory to both sides, and that was in the passage of the Bill to substitute the word "Queen" for the objectionable word "Empress." It might be a great misfortune if a Bill thus introduced were rejected altogether; and, on the other hand, it would be a misfortune if it were carried by a bare or reluctant majority against a strong feeling which, whether rightly or wrongly, did exist in the country in regard to the particular designation which it was proposed to apply to Her Majesty. Individually, he did not feel so strongly as many persons did against the title of Empress. He agreed with much of what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and disagreed with much that had been said on the front Opposition bench. The visit of the Prince of Wales to India had elicited there a strong personal attachment and loyalty, which was as grateful to some persons as it probably was unexpected. It was therefore good policy to pay what, from his experience in India, would, he thought, be looked upon as a graceful compliment to the Princes and people of India, by showing that India was not a neglected dependency, but an honoured and respected portion of the British Empire. A compliment of this sort would, in his opinion, be agreeable to the people of India, who were peculiarly sensitive to the sentimental side of politics. At the same time, the best, and, indeed, the only, authority to which they ought to turn upon a question of this sort was the authority of the Viceroy of India, who was in personal contact with the Princes and Nobles affected by the measure. Whatever his (Mr. Laing's) own opinion might have been, he should never have dreamt of opposing it to the opinion of the Viceroy, taken upon the spot, upon such a question. Even if at this late hour the Government would produce an opinion from Lord Northbrook in favour of the proposed change, showing that it had been considered and recommended by him, it would go a long way in overcoming his (Mr. Laing's) scruples. He regretted that of late there had been a growing tendency to pass over the authority of the Governor General of India, and to substitute for it the authority of the Secretary of State and of the Council in London. As to the title of Empress, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said to-night that the opposition to it proceeded from an unreasoning panic; but it was rather one of those instinctive feelings which could not, perhaps, be expressed in logical terms, but which were none the less real. Speeches alone could not have created such a feeling, for they had altogether failed to create it in reference to other matters, such as the purchase of the Suez Canal shares. The feeling of the country on this subject seemed to be founded rather upon an excess than a deficiency of loyalty and attachment to the Crown. We had got a notion that the title borne by Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria was so rooted in our affections that any attempt to enhance its dignity would rather detract from its lustre than add to it. The objection to the title of Empress was owing to the associations connected with it in recent times. Those who had borne the title—for instance, the Sovereigns of the Napoleonic dynasty—had occupied a large and conspicuous place in history, and it was hard to use the term without associating with it a flavour of those dynasties. Everything that was most repugnant to the feelings, as well as to the constitutional principles of Englishmen, was involved, to a certain extent, in the title of Emperor. They were told on good authority that there was very little difference between the title of Queen and that of Empress in India; and it was a pity if, for the sake of a slight shadow of distinction between the two, they were going to spoil the unanimity with which this measure would, undoubtedly, otherwise have been passed. With regard to the effect which the new title would have on the Princes of India, or the effect it might have on our relations with India, he must say he agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he had heard with great regret that question of our direct position and relations with the Princes of India raised in the House. There could be nothing more mischievous than to define these things in Treaties, or to bring them up in discussions of this kind. Our relations with India were most delicate, and it must always be so from the nature of the position of the Native Princes. But we were the Supreme Power protecting those Princes from foreign aggression and from domestic rebellion. That position carried with it certain rights and responsibilities, and he held that the position of the Viceroy should not be interfered with in any way. He was strongly opposed to the policy of making that official a mere clerk, and he hoped he would never be interfered with in the settlement of the delicate matters that arose between the Government of India and the Native Princes. The relations between those Princes and the Viceroy at the present time were most satisfactory. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, seemed weak on the point why the title of Queen should not be adopted. We could not go by mere logic; but surely neither Scindia nor Holkar could feel offended if the Queen were to govern India by the same title as that by which she governed England. It was not too much to appeal to the Government and to the House of Commons to make some little concession in the matter of the new title, for the sake of securing unanimity. The title of Queen would be received with universal approbation he believed. It might be useless; but still he appealed to the Government and to the other side of the House to make the concession.


desired to look at the question with the independence which a seat below the Gangway entitled him to claim. He had the Bill and the Resolution to choose between, and as to the latter he must remark that any Resolution bearing the name of the Leader of the Opposition for the time being had more than one side. One must not only read it from first to last, but must turn it over and look at the back. The present Leader of the Opposition—using most legitimately his rights—thought he had caught the Government tripping, and had put down this Resolution in the hope that it would have the effect of rallying around him wise Whigs, philosophic Radicals, and patriotic Home Rulers all in one Lobby. But a position like that of the Leader of the Opposition had its responsibilities as well as its duties, and he must not be angry with those who might ask him whether his Resolution meant only what it seemed to say by the laws of grammar and logic, or whether it pointed to a Party victory? He wished at the outset to declare that he regarded the question as by no means easy; while it was one which had emphatically an Indian and also an English side. He would begin with India. Sharing a great many of the objections to the word Empress, yet he could not but think that this Resolution, at the present stage of the Bill, whether the Bill were wise or unwise, was a most unwise thing. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had talked of throwing political squibs into a powder magazine. But what would more completely carry out that insane proceeding than at this stage to kill the Bill as the Resolution was really meant to do? What could be more disastrous than that it should go forth to the great Indian Chiefs, to Holkar and Scindia—who were, after all, more powerful in their own domains than the Duke of Argyll—that the British Parliament had rejected a measure brought in by the responsible Minister of the Crown for the purpose of paying them a compliment? He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had logically put the question on its true grounds. Queen represented one class of thoughts and Empress another, according to the old as contrasted with the modern order, and so the right hon. Gentleman gave reasons why the circumstances of India, so different from those over here, had led up to the recognition of the latter word. It was, as the Government now put it, a Bill to regularize an existing situation. In England the ancient title of the Sovereign was King or Queen, and he trusted that this country would never be governed except by a King or Queen and Lords and Commons; but the Government of India was not a Constitutional Government such as ours, and he should be sorry if it were to become so in his life-time, for the people would certainly not be fit for it. They were, however, a people with whom externals stood in place of principles; and to their mental conformation increase of title in their Rulers was increase of dignity to themselves. Coming to England, he regretted to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer describe the healthy wave of public opinion which had passed over the country as a panic. It was not a panic, but the spontaneous expression of the pride of the English people in the ancient title of their Sovereign; it was an outburst of the righteous jealousy of Englishmen, who desired that the Crown which had been worn by our Alfreds and Henries and Edwards should be for all time the Crown of Kings and Queens, and a declaration that no Emperor as Emperor should have a foothold in England. For his own part, caring for the nation above Party, he was very glad at this emphatic proclamation of the national, peculiar, perhaps, and insular, but deeply genuine and true sentiment of Englishmen that their Sovereign, whether King or Queen, was equal to any Emperor. On the other hand, it was much to be regretted that the matter had been raised, or rather debased, into a Party question by the advent of the Leader of the Opposition. His own conviction, after much thought, was that they could deal with the subject most judiciously by accepting the proposal as a Bill for localizing the title as one for Indian purposes. Certainly, from the Indian point of view, he thought that evidence had been adduced of the good policy of some such addition of title, which might not be sufficient for a Court of Law, but ought to be for a court of common sense such as the House of Commons. Did they think that the Governor General, a man of whom Members on the other side of the House had good reason to be proud, would have dared to speak of the Queen as Empress of Hindostan if he did not know what he was talking about? Did they think that the Maharajah of Jeypore, with his pedigree of fabulous antiquity, would use phrases inconsistent with the exceptional pride engendered by claims such as his? He was in one sense glad the question had been raised, because it had given the people of Eng- land an opportunity of declaring their affection for, and their adhesion to, the Kingly title. He had no fears of a formal misuse of the title; he did not anticipate "Royal and Imperial Highnesses;" but, on the other hand, he could not say that he thought all danger overpast, for there existed so much vulgarity of feeling stimulated by sensational writing, and so much helpless imbecility that believed in tawdry rhetoric, among certain classes, that a corrupt illegitimate tradition might yet grow up, as to which he would only say that he conceived that any attempt to talk of Queen-Empress or Empress-Queen would be the first step towards the abandonment of that national instinct of susceptibility with which so much of the greatness of England was associated. The talk indulged in from both sides about the Antonines, Nero, and other ancient Roman Emperors, good or bad, was wide of the present question, if not simply rubbish. The idea of an Emperor such as it had existed in Christian Western Europe took its full shape on Christmas Day, 800, when Charles the Great was crowned in St. Peter's. From him was derived that great line of the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire—Romanorum Imperator semper Augustus—who were really less dynastic than Kings, for the Crown of the Empire was elective. His right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, in his speech the other night, talked of the Emperor of Germany here and the Emperor of Germany there. He should have known that there never was an Emperor of Germany, except in popular parlance. In time Emperor as well as electors became equally German, and the country he ruled was Germany; but his title to the last was Emperor of the Romans—an august conception, and one for which he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had, in its proper place, the highest respect. That Roman Empire—the one genuine Empire—only expired some 70 years ago. Since then there had been make-believe Emperors, who were neither better nor worse than Kings. For example, to take a perfectly inoffensive case, Brazil was a Province of Portugal, till 50 years ago a son of the then King of Portugal made himself Emperor of Brazil, and was recognized as such by the European Powers. He was sure no one would say of the Emperor of Brazil and the King of Portugal that either was one whit better than the other. So much for Emperors. What was the rationale of our native Kingship? A great step in the assertion of its Imperial character was made by Henry VII. when he changed the once regal Crown into the Imperial, or over-arching form. France made the same change; and as to the passage which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford quoted from Vattel as to the precedence which the King of France yielded to the Emperor, he must notice that it was not always so cheerfully accorded, as when Louis XIV. sent his troops to break into the Cathedral of Spires, to violate the tombs, and scatter the remains of the Roman Emperors, a brutality which Germany in 1870 showed that it had neither forgotten nor forgiven. Henry VIII's famous Act was the formal declaration of the Imperial character of the English Kingdom as a Kingdom, under a Sovereign who was King in name, but in pre-eminence equivalent to an Emperor, while Emperor still meant Roman Emperor. But as to the formal title of Emperor or Empress, the dedication by Spenser to Elizabeth of "The Faery Queen," which had been referred to, only proved that Spenser had tried it on and had failed. He had recently observed that what so eminent a poet had essayed in the case of Elizabeth, a very obscure poet also tried in the case of Cromwell, for a copy of Latin verses had been brought to light which congratulated the Protector on his escape from a bad accident, caused by his ambition to drive a drag in Hyde Park, under the title of Oliver, Emperor of the British Islands. Very probably, if the dynasty of Cromwell had unhappily succeeded in supplanting our old Royal line, it would have taken the title of Emperor, for the same reason that the line of Buonaparte grasped the same appellation in France—namely, as a style as grand as, but differing from, that of the historical line of sovereigns. The summing up of the teaching of the 16th and 17th centuries was that a conflict then was going on between the Sovereign and the people, which might retrospectively be treated as a mutual amicable competition, to raise and magnify the nation—Sovereign, and people alike—though each side worked in its own behalf, which resulted in that most admirable compromise which had lasted to this day—namely, that the Crown of Great Britain and Ireland should be an Imperial Crown, and that the monarchy should have Imperial attributes possessed in virtue of, and with, the Kingly title. This was the especial idea of which the nation was so jealous. This it was, and not a simple Kingship, which the English people so prized in their Sovereigns, and were determined should never be forfeited. He did not believe they cared so very much for the local style in India, or that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) spoke the general sentiment, when he manifested so great a repugnance to the name of Emperor in all cases and everywhere. Still, in view of possible difficulties, he confessed he should have been very glad if some other name than Empress had been chosen. Words in themselves were helpless things, and owed their value to the active human intellect which shaped their meaning. To the Oriental mind the word "Queen" was merely the agglomeration of so many letters, to which this or that signification might be attached. Surely the title "Queen" might be proclaimed, and a meaning created for it which should, in the Oriental languages, be represented and translated by the fullest accumulation of the highest titles of which they were capable. On the whole, as the whole matter had been turned into the occasion of a Party fight, he could not support the Motion of the noble Lord, although he confessed to considerable agreement with opinions which it rather vaguely embodied. He should therefore vote against it.


said, he was extremely sorry that they should be discussing the question, for surely in this country, where the lines which divided political Parties were not very broad nor very deep, there were some means by which, if this Bill was to be introduced at all, an understanding could have been come to between the two great Parties with regard to it. It might have been brought under the notice of the House very much after the manner of a Vote of Thanks to distinguished officers of the Army and Navy. The Motion might have been proposed by the Prime Minister, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, and carried unanimously. He did not very much object to it; but he confessed it had not been made clear to his mind that there was any necessity for the Bill being introduced, or for there being any change in Her Majesty's style and title. It had not been made clear to him why the thing was necessary or desirable. The hon. Gentleman who had had just sat down (Mr. B. Hope) said it was desirable to regularize the situation in India, and to show exactly what the position of the Crown of England was in relation to the numerous Potentates of India. But it appeared to him that there were some situations in the world which were better for not being regularized, and this was one of them. One result of the attempt to regularize this situation had been that a great many speeches had been made, some of them by Friends with whom he usually acted—speeches which put forth very unsound doctrines with respect to these relations. Surely the present position of the Crown of England with reference to the Native Princes of India was a sufficiently advantageous one. He was sorry that the matter had been discussed at all; but as it had been discussed, and some remarks had been made on the Liberal side with regard to our relations with Native Princes, he thought it right to say a few words as to what these relations were as they appeared to him. When a European first had to consider the question of the relations of ourselves towards the people of India, his first idea was always to go to the maxims of International Law; but before he had gone far he found that International Law had nothing to do with the matter, because before the science of International Law applied they must have nations, and not one of the States in India was a nation. Those Princes were sometimes described as feudatories, and that was perhaps the most convenient way to describe them. It was a loose and popular way, however, for their relations to us were not strictly feudal relations. Just as little even the Native Princes mediatized Sovereigns. The truth was, the relation of the British Government to them was sui generis, and all analogies drawn from other sources utterly broke down. Those relations had been the result partly of regular Treaties, partly of charters which had been given to Native Princes, and partly of usage. It was impossible to explain without great detail how we had got our present position, but it was now admitted throughout India that we had the position of paramount power. There was not one Prince who would deny that the Queen of England was the paramount Lady in India. These Native Princes owed to us certain duties, and they had been well summed up under three heads—First, the duty of subordinate co-operation; secondly, the duty of isolation; and, thirdly, the duty of considering themselves as possessing a limited and not a full Sovereignty. Now, by subordinate co-operation he understood that these Native States were obliged to act together with the Viceroy and his Council in all matters which were necessary to the common weal. It was the bounden duty of those States to act with us in all matters concerning the whole of the Empire, and that was a duty which had not and never would be refused by any one of them. It was perfectly understood and admitted. In the next place, not one of those States was permitted to make a Treaty with any other of them without us, nor to make a Treaty or to enter into correspondence with any foreign Power beyond the limits of India. Thirdly, they had the obligation of considering that their Sovereignty was limited; they had to submit to all kinds of interference on our part which was totally incompatible with their independence or semi-independence. When, therefore, the Native States were considered by us to lie under all those different obligations which restricted their power so enormously, and reduced them, though not exactly to the position of subjects as understood in Europe, yet to a position of dependence under the British Crown, why was it necessary now to ask the House to stamp a position already so completely admitted by a particular word, the word "Empress," which was peculiarly disagreeable to British ears? Why not take "Sovereign Lady," or "Lady Paramount?" Why should the Government have gone out of their way to propose that the particular title taken should be one which, he confessed very much to his surprise, had excited so strong and so spontaneous an outburst of disapprobation in this country?


said, he would have greatly preferred to have abstained from taking part in a debate which seemed to him ungracious in the extreme, and one that ought never to have arisen. In his judgment, that the debate had arisen was entirely owing, in the first instance at least, to the speeches of the right hon. Members for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) and for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone); and after all that had been said and written on that question it was almost impossible for those who, like himself, entirely approved the course pursued throughout by the Government in regard to it, to remain altogether silent any longer. The question before them that evening presented itself in a somewhat different position from that which it held a few days ago. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich said the other night that the title of Empress of India would convey an idea contrary to fact, on the ground that there were several districts of that country over which we had no right to adopt any such title, so that the question was whether any addition should be made to the title of the Queen over our Indian Empire; and, if so, what form the addition should take. According to the Motion of the noble Marquess, it might be supposed the first of these alternatives was no longer insisted on, for the first section of the Motion of the noble Marquess expressed willingness to consider the question of making an addition to the Royal style and title. He (Mr. Chaplin) was exceedingly glad that this was the case; because, though the first of the questions to which he had referred might appear to involve considerations of difficulty and perhaps danger, yet, if they were all agreed upon the propriety of making some addition to the Royal title, the question as to what the mere word should be was, comparatively speaking, of very small moment. He said comparatively speaking, because he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that there was nothing small or unimportant which touched on the honour or dignity of the Crown. What was the position, then, in which the House was placed? After having gone as far as they had done in the direction in which they had travelled, nothing could be more fatally injurious to the reputation of the British House of Commons, either in the eyes of the people of this country, in the face of Europe, or in the minds of the millions of Her Majesty's subjects in India, than if they were now to hold their hands and withdraw from the policy they had adopted. For that reason alone, if for no other, he regretted, more than he could express, that the noble Lord had thought right to place this Motion on the Paper. This Motion contained an affirmation and an assumption. It affirmed that it would be inexpedient to impair the ancient and Royal dignity of the Crown, in which they all concurred; and then it went on to assume that the addition of the Imperial title must have that effect. The noble Lord ought to have confined his Amendment to its last clause—namely, that the addition to Her Majesty's titles of Empress was calculated to "impair the ancient and Royal dignity of the Crown." That was its real point, and the only point in dispute between the two sides of the House. Various arguments had been adduced in support of the Government measure, all more or less worthy of attention, and not one valid reason against it was expressed by the noble Lord in proposing his Amendment. It had, indeed, been affirmed over and over again that there were sentimental objections to the title "Empress" as against "Queen;" as if every Emperor or Empress who had ever lived had been bad, and every King or Queen universally good. It had been objected that the proposed title implied despotism; that it was Brummagem; that it was novel and new; that it met with small favour, if not positive disfavour; and that the people viewed it with a repugnance almost amounting to dismay. When they came to be examined, those assertions would be found to have very little in them. He did not pretend to be able to decide so nice a point as to what there was in the title of Emperor more despotic than in that of King. He did not know whether the Emperor of Germany was a despot or not; but some Kings in this country had been despots—Henry VIII., for example, whom Gentlemen opposite would admit was once a King in this country. The title of Emperor was at least 2,000 years old; and therefore Brummagem, or new, or novel, were words out of place in describing it. When the noble Lord said that the title was exceedingly unpopular, he wanted to know what proofs there were of such a state of feeling. Where did the noble Lord find the unanimous expression of feeling he had been talking of? Was it the verdict of the House of Commons or the unanimous support of his own Party? If so, he was grievously mistaken. The noble Lord spoke of the voice of the people; but when, where, and how had that voice been heard? Was it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who, he was sorry, were not in their places, that the noble Lord looked for his instructions about the opinion of the people of England? If he did, he could learn little indeed from them on that subject. The House had had some experience of their knowledge of public opinion. It was only a short time since the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) so accurately gauged the feeling of the people of this country that, with a majority of more than 100 at his back, he dismissed them to improve his position in that House and in the country, with what results hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had an excellent opportunity of estimating. And who had shared in his opposition to this measure? The only one other man in this country who, in addition to himself, was still unable to comprehend why it was that the people of Great Britain hailed with acclamation the purchase which was recently made by Her Majesty's Government in Egypt; and why was there acclamation? Because the people felt that an Imperial Power like this country had great Imperial duties to discharge, and that the Government acted in accordance with that opinion when they made that purchase. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London by his match tax, and a thousand other amenities which he had bestowed on the country, had exhibited his perfect and exquisite appreciation of the feeling of this country. And those two right hon. Gentlemen took upon themselves to instruct the House of Commons and the noble Lord as to the feelings of the people of this country. Was it in the Liberal portion of the Press of this country that the noble Lord found that the people of this country were unanimously opposed to this Bill? That he (Mr. Chaplin) thought was a broken reed to lean upon. How did it happen that the Liberal portion of the Press on one day described this measure in terms almost of fulsome adulation, and on the next said it was nothing but a blunder and a miserable mistake? Perhaps they were led away by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Even he (Mr. Chaplin) was almost convinced by the glamour of his eloquence, though he knew the whole time it was a delusion. Who could suppose for a moment that the political status of the Princes of India could be injured by this title, and yet that was one of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments? Then he objected that the name of India should be placed on the title, on the ground that we had no right to use it, because the whole of India was not subject to us; and yet he (Mr. Chaplin) ventured to remind the House that one of the titles of the Governor General, as representing Her Majesty, was the Viceroy of India. When he remembered the total absence of anything like dissent on the part of the noble Lord himself, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, or any Member of the Liberal Party who spoke on the first night on which the announcement of this measure was made to the House; when he remembered the remarkable change of opinion which had occurred on the part of the Liberal portion of the Press, he was reluctantly driven to the conclusion that the opposition the Government now had to encounter was neither more nor less than a deliberate and calculated Party movement. And if this graceful act of Royal courtesy was to be met by a wanton ebullition of Party opposition on the other side of the House, they on the Conservative side of the House knew how to do their duty. They had, in fact, only one duty to perform; and he trusted from the bottom of his heart that the independent and loyal Members of the House would to a man rally round the Ministry, with a determination to resist to the uttermost this most uncalled-for, ill-timed, and most unreasonable opposition to the legitimate, judicious, and reasonable proposal made by Her Majesty's Ministers.


Sir, the question is one which interests a large portion of the subjects of the Crown, and it is one which ought to be very carefully dealt with. I have heard on this occasion speeches such as I never heard before, more mischievous than any I have ever heard since I first became a Member of this House, and that, too, for what purpose? Let us inquire what is the exact situation of affairs. It appears that India, having been subjected to a great Mutiny, has really been conquered by England; peace has been made, and from that time to this there has been growing up a good feeling between the people of England and the people of India. At this time the Heir Apparent—very wisely, I think—suggested that he should make a tour throughout our Indian dominions. I take it that the Prince of Wales in going to India represented England, and that everything that was done and said to him in India may be considered to be done and spoken to England. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Ministers agreed—and wisely, I think—that a great opportunity offered for the people of England to express kindness and good feeling towards the people of India, and they sought how they could do it, and they determined they could do it best by the alteration or addition to the style of Her Majesty, believing that the people of England, through the Crown, took a deep interest in the welfare of that country, and wanted to make the Crown itself a mark by which that good feeling should be manifested. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Ministers came down and asked this House to give Her Majesty power to add to Her title. Thereupon there was immediately—and I think very naturally—the question put to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Administration—"What style are you about to advise Her Majesty to adopt?" That was a very natural and very wise question to be put, and I think it was somewhat unwisely on the part of the Prime Minister—unless he was unprepared to answer it—left unanswered, and the Prime Minister surrounded the subject with a degree of mystery that was uncalled for and was unnecessary; at all events, he did not then give an answer to the inquiry. But on the next opportunity, when the Bill came on for its second reading, the right hon. Gentleman fully explained what was the addition to the style which he should advise Her Majesty to adopt. Now, then, come in the questions which the House has to ask itself—first, is it wise to make any alteration at all in the style; and, secondly, is it wise to make the particular alteration in the style which we now learn the First Minister intends to advise Her Majesty to make? I do not think that the people of this country, whatever may be said about the "spontaneous outburst of feeling" throughout the country against this Bill, will say that it is unwise to make any alteration in the style and title of the Queen, more especially when such alteration is intended to be a mark of consideration and kindness and of generosity towards the people of India. Therefore, I think we may dismiss at once—and this is an important point—all doubt as to the wisdom and policy of making any alteration at all in the style of Her Majesty. We all therefore allow that some alteration in that style may be made with perfect wisdom. Now, then, comes the question whether the alteration in the style proposed by the Ministry is a wise one. The only objection made to their proposal is to one word—that is to the use of the word "Empress" instead of that of "Queen." If I were to say what I myself feel on this question, I should say that I like the word "Queen" better than the word "Empress." But then I have to consider not what I should prefer, but what is the exact position that England holds upon the present occasion. We have heard many learned disquisitions upon the meaning of the word "Emperor" since this question was raised, we have been told to look at its origin from Imperator, and we have been told what was possibly the true meaning of that word, but for my own part I believe that the word "Emperor" in our common acceptation of its meaning has more to do with Empire than with Imperator—more to do with Imperial than Imperator. The general feeling of English-speaking people with regard to the word "Empire" is that of a State which has some dominions subject to it, and it was in that way that it was used by the English Parliament when they said "that England was an Empire and that the English Crown was an Imperial one." When that language was used we had dominions which we considered conquered, and among them was Ireland; and the King of England thought his Crown entitled to be called an Imperial Crown because it had subject dominions. That is exactly the position which the Queen of England holds in India; and, therefore, if we can localize the phrase "Emperor" or "Empress," and keep it applied strictly to India without allowing it to be reflected back upon England, we stall by the use of that word accurately describe the position of the Queen of England in India. She is there an Empress. She is there exactly what the word means. I am not an Indian or Persian scholar, and I do not know how to translate the word into those languages; but in English, at all events, the word "Empress" more distinctly marks the position of Her Majesty in that country than that of "Queen." Therefore it is that I give up my preference for the word "Queen," although I have the Anglo-Saxon affection for it. When the Ministry say that the addition of the word "Empress" to the Royal style will please the people of India, I do not suppose that they are saying so without believing such to be the case, and I do not think that they would entertain such a belief without having good evidence in support of it. Therefore, I say that the fair style and title of Queen of England and Empress of India will entail no danger, and will merely express the actual position of our Sovereign in the latter country. But then we are assailed by terrible descriptions of the danger which the adoption of this addition to the style is to entail upon our rule in India; and then comes in the speech of the right hon. Member for Greenwich, which went as far as a speech could go to make our Empire in India tremble. That speech was calculated to give rise to erroneous ideas in the minds of the Princes of India—ideas which we do not wish those Princes should entertain, and which no patriotic Englishman would wish that they should entertain. But with regard to the right hon. Gentleman, Sir, I should like to employ a line which was employed in reference to a greater man than he—a man who Though born for the universe, narrowed his mind, And to party gave up what was meant for mankind. On that occasion he seemed to forget, in the wild tumult of Party feeling, that he had once occupied a high position in this country, and that he had ruled her great destinies, and had been for many years the guide of her Sovereign and of her people. To him the people turned as to one of those great lights by which they are guided and governed in their political life, and when we hear a man of that sort, who has occupied that great and dignified position, express in such a hasty, careless, and unwise manner opinions which, I am sure, when he got home and read them the next morning he must have regretted uttering, we must all alike feel hurt. I speak as I feel; I speak as I have a right to speak; and fearing no man and expecting nothing, I state what I believe, and that is my belief. I am now unable to say more; but I will add this—that upon this occasion, if ever there was one, it behoves this House to understand and appreciate its position. The great Empire of England is now in the balance, and our present acts may greatly influence the future destinies of this great country. If we indulge in wild and terrible talk it will create feelings of hatred to our rule. If we teach the people of India that we are unjust, that we are cruel and despotic, we shall go far to shake this great Empire; and the world will hereafter have to say that the House of Commons in this year 1876 would not do its duty to that great country which made it its representative.


said, he had listened with the greatest pleasure to the speech which had just concluded. He confessed that after all he had heard and read on the subject of this Bill, he had found with amazement that it was to be made a great Party question. They had all heard how from a cloud not bigger than a man's hand great storms had arisen; but here they had a great political storm roaring and moaning along the benches of the Opposition, when only a few days ago the sky had been perfectly cloudless and unobscured. There was, however, about the storm something that suggested to the mind the scene of the witches in Macbeth. and its thunder smelt strongly of the theatre. The measure had at first been received by a chorus of approval by even the Liberal Press, The Times, the leader of public opinion, characterizing the measure as a happy thought on the part of the Prime Minister, and as being singularly appropriate at the present moment. The Times spoke of the proposal as being singularly appropriate, and The Daily Telegraph, Daily News, and other organs of public opinion followed in the same direction. Now, however, they were told that there was a spontaneous growth of public opinion in the other direction. There was doubt as to how public opinion grew upon many matters; but if asked how and where the spontaneous growth of opinion on this matter had its rise, he should say that it originated in a forcing house situate in St. James's Street, and that, although by many persons supposed to be cryptogamic, it was, in fact, generated in the Devonshire—he had almost said the Cavendish—Club. Let them gauge the "spontaneous" outburst of public opinion. Where did they see it except in speeches? How many Petitions had been presented? One Petition had been presented against the Bill that evening, and it had solved an important historical question. Some years ago the walls and hoardings of London were placarded over with "Who's Griffiths?" There was much speculation on the point. It had been solved this evening by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) presenting a Petition which he said was from Mr. Griffiths, who was a clergyman at Derby—whether with Ritualistic, Low, High, or Broad Church, he neither knew nor cared. [Mr. GOLDSMID: He is a Nonconformist minister.] Then that explained it. He naturally dissented from the powers that be, and it was this Mr. Griffiths who represented the great spontaneous public feeling and opinion of the people of this country. In discussing this question he might assume that the Opposition did not object to the assumption of some title by Her Majesty, although his noble Friend had said that the Bill was so against the feeling of the people, that they must stop it. To stop the Bill in the present state of things was more than the House could do. The Queen in her gracious Speech had announced that she was going to take a new title, and Her Majesty's Ministers had introduced the Bill to give effect to the paragraph in the Speech, which at the time met with general approval. It would not be reasonable—he had almost gone the length of saying he did not think it would be decent—on the part of the House of Commons, after receiving Her Majesty's Speech, to make her stultify herself by the rejection of this Bill altogether. The Bill had been opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), whose arguments, which did not take either with the House or the country, were described by The Times as being partly frivolous and partly perverse. The proposal was also opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who so framed his opposition that the question came to be one not so much as to whether the Bill should pass as to what title Her Majesty should add to those which she already possessed. He was proud of living under the rule of the Queen. Nothing could add to the dignity of the Royal title in this country; and if this had been a question of investing the Queen with the title of Empress in England he would have given the proposal his most uncompromising opposition. But when it was argued that the Queen should not take the title of Empress because there had been wicked Emperors, such a procedure did not commend itself to English common sense. There was no use of arguing the question on that abstract ground. What they had really to consider was whether the assumption of the proposed title would or would not be beneficial to the interests of India. It was certainly most desirable that the title to be borne by the Queen in India should be one which declared in the most emphatic way the predominant power of our rule in India. This was no new matter. Ever since the Government of India had been transferred from the East India Company it had been understood that the title of Empress would be assumed by the Queen. General Jacob, in his scheme for the improvement of India, spoke of her as the Empress of India; Lord Northbrook had used the phrase "Empress of Hindustan;" newspaper correspondents employed the same phrase; it was accepted in articles in all kinds of periodicals; and even the almanacks—Whittaker's and Who's Who?—had spoken of the Queen as Empress of India. With regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, he had listened to his speech with astonishment. It touched upon most dangerous grounds. The right hon. Gentleman had adopted a course which was so indiscreet that it almost became a fault—and a political fault, according to French ethics, was more than a crime. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of our taking away from the Native Princes the prerogatives, the privileges, and the supremacy they had enjoyed, he ought to have been very certain of his facts, and very sure that the Bill would do what he said it professed to do. The despatches that had been quoted that evening from Lord Canning to Scindia showed that the paramount power of the Queen over the Native Princes was declared in the most emphatic manner; and therefore the argument against the assumption of the proposed title fell to the ground. Whatever title Her Majesty might be pleased to take—and that he could confidently leave to the Government—he hoped that the effect of the assumption of the new title would be to strengthen and consolidate our paramount power in the East, and that it would draw still closer the ties which united the Empire of India to the United Kingdom. That it would confirm the confidence which he believed the Natives now had in the justice and benignancy of the British rule, and would perpetuate that feeling of chivalrous loyalty to the Sovereign which had been so strikingly evoked by the visit of the Prince of Wales. He hoped that in the words of a former Member of that House—Mr. T. Baring—India would not be made the shuttlecock of Party in this matter, and that the Bill would receive the support of a great majority of that House, as it had already received the almost unanimous assent of the great mass of the people of this country.


I rise, Sir, to a point of Order, and I ask your ruling on this point. I was under the impression that it was out of Order in this House to invoke the displeasure of the Sovereign on myself and my fellow Members. I heard, if I recollect aright—and I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord by asking your ruling, as I now do, whether we are to deliberate on this question under a menace of asking the Sovereign to stultify herself? Sir, I ask this ruling, recollecting that exactly 240 years ago—["Oh! oh!"]—I do say that we are carried back to the evil days of the Stuarts by the observations of which I complain, when the wish of the Sovereign was imported into a debate on the floor of this House; and the answer made was the answer which I make now, subject to your ruling, which I evoke— The Prince's wish is brought into our Assembly like the roaring of a lion—who can withstand it? I now complain of the menace held out to me and to other Members of this House; and I respectfully demand a ruling whether it is in accordance with good order in this House to import the wishes, feelings, or proclivities of the Sovereign by saying that we call upon her to stultify herself?


No doubt the introduction of the name or the wishes of the Sovereign, with a view to influence the judgment of this House, is altogether out of Order. If I had thought that the noble Lord who has just addressed the House had so offended, I should have considered it my duty to have called him to Order.


wished to say a few words as a Constitutional Member, for hon. Gentlemen opposite, who claimed the title of the Constitutional Party, while claiming that name had, by introducing this Bill, abandoned the position. The House had heard an eloquent speech from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Elcho), but in spite of that speech the Amendment which the noble Lord had placed upon the Paper spoke far stronger meaning than his words had done, and showed that he had the very same dread of this title that Liberal Members had. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) said, that he could fancy nothing worse for the dignity of the House of Commons than to draw back from the position that had been taken up by Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Anderson) could fancy something very much worse for the dignity of the House of Commons, and that was the Party subserviency which rather than condemn the blunder of a Prime Minister would utterly neglect and ignore the wishes and the feelings and susceptibilities of the people of this country and the constituencies who sent them there. He agreed with a great deal of the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), and he was only surprised that he could wind up with such a conclusion as to vote for this Bill. He was particularly pleased to hear the severe rebuke which the hon. Member administered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for saying that a wave of healthy public opinion was really an unreasoning panic, A week ago he (Mr. Anderson) ventured to say to the Prime Minister opposite, that as Members on the Liberal side of the House were totally dissatisfied with the title of Empress, so the people of the country would be equally dissatisfied; and he ventured to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he would live to regret having touched the subject at all. He did not then expect that within one short week these words would be justified and the manifestation of popular feeling would be so strong as it was. Reference had been made to the Liberal Press. But had not the Conservative Press spoken out strongly upon this matter also? Had not various Conservative papers strongly condemned the Bill? Did the right hon. Gentleman feel as confident to-night as he did a week ago when he led that great majority of secretly-dissatisfied Members? ["Oh!"] He said secretly dissatisfied, because hon. Members who had voted with the Government did not hesitate to speak privately against the measure. ["Name."] He declined to give names. Hon. Members opposite would not like to hear their names, nor did he think that in a matter of private conversation he should be asked to do so. The right hon. Gentleman, when he led that large majority, and found only 31 to record their dissent, must have felt a little more triumphant than he did at present. The division which was about to take place would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman much more strongly what the real feeling of the country was; and if it were postponed for a week, a fortnight, or a month longer, it would express it still more freely. When the right hon. Gentleman addressed the House, he said he was surprised that the criticism of the Bill should proceed on what he called the gratuitous assumption that the word Empress was to be used. He said that the fact of the whole of the arguments being based upon that assumption was a primâ facie proof that that title was an apposite one. The result had proved that the assumption was based upon well-founded apprehensions, and it had shown that the feeling of the country coincided exactly with the feelings of those who opposed that title. Referring to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in aformer debate, in which reference was made to the "Antonines,"—he must remark that the An- tonines were not all good—what of Commodus and Caracalla, and if we went back to them might we not also go to Caligula and Nero? He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Cambridge, who had said the reference to the Antonines was mere rubbish. The Prime Minister had also cited the instance of the Czarina, who in 1745 took the title of Empress, and had said that this caused such an excitement throughout the Courts of Europe that she had found it necessary to issue a diplomatic letter, declaring that in the assumption of the title she did not claim any superiority over contemporary Kings. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to subject Her Majesty to the same indignity, and that now when she wished to take the title of Empress, which was likely to make some commotion in the Courts of Europe and even of India, she was to be obliged to write a diplomatic letter or reversal to say that she meant nothing by it? If he did not, what was the illustration brought up for? The people of this country did not need to strengthen their sound practical instincts by going back to the times of the Antonines or even of the Czarina. They were content with modern instances; and if they kept to modern instances, it was quite impossible to find any of them otherwise than repugnant to the instincts of this country. Was it Brazil or Mexico, or Morocco, or Hayti they were to copy, or were they expected to feel greater respect for Russia, Austria, or the unfortunate results of the First and Second Empires? With these examples before them the people of this country sought for nothing more, nor did they care about nice definitions of words. However much they might go into them, they could not disabuse their minds of the simple, currently accepted meaning of the title of Queen, which was a Constitutional title, while that of Emperor was more or less despotic. It was not by a quotation from the Faerie Queen that their opinions would be changed. But if the poets were to be consulted upon this question, he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to Dante's description of the attributes of Almighty Power, in which he drew a nice distinction between reigning and governing, which, he took it, was exactly the difference between Queen and Empress. The right hon. Gentleman said that Empress was to be only a local title confined to India. The House could not believe that. They well knew that they would blind themselves to certain natural resultsif they did so. It was quite true the title of Empress was to be put at the tail of a long string of titles now; but in spite of whatever might be intended, and in spite of Amendments by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire and others, custom would bring Empress from the end to the beginning of the title, and that was what they dreaded. He was surprised that the Constitutional Party should bring in such a dangerous change. He looked upon the adoption of the title of Empress of India as the first step in the decadence of our Monarchy. The second step, and one that would be certain to follow, would be "Emperor of England." The third step he would not venture to predict; but he would remind the House that the title of Emperor in its origin and inception never was hereditary, and it would appear as if fate precluded the possibility of its becoming so. In one neighbouring country where it had been found quite possible to have a long line of Kings, it had been found utterly impossible to have a long line of Emperors. The best friends of a permanent and enduring Monarchy in this country were those who most jealously watched against every trespass, and who kept the Monarchy most strictly within constitutional limits. On that occasion, Liberal Members were the best friends of the Monarchy. Hon. Members on the other side had proved themselves by the present Bill to be the very worst. The Prime Minister had no fear of the title of Empress coming here, because he said we never called the Queen "Her Royal Majesty." But though the Queen was never so styled, unfortunately an Emperor was always called "His Imperial Majesty," and there was a danger that we in this country should leave out the "Royal" and adopt the "Imperial." Then, what were the Princes, Princesses, and Royal Dukes? They were at present called their Royal Highnesses. Were they to be after this Bill "their Imperial Highnesses?" Rumour abroad said that was the main reason of this Bill. He hoped that rumour was not true. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite had told them he was very fond of the amplification of titles, and it was very likely he might be found some day creating a certain Royal personage "Grand Duke of Edinburgh," in order to put him on a level with his Imperial wife. The right hon. Gentleman described in glowing terms the advantages of an amplification of titles, and said it was almost the only means of touching and satisfying the imagination of nations. If that were the object of this Bill, was the House prepared to pay the price for it? Were they to wound and offend the susceptibilities of this country in order to touch and satisfy the imagination of another? If they were, was the title of Empress of India one which would effect that object, or was it not more likely to cause dissatisfaction? Upon that point the right hon. Gentleman had refused to give the House any evidence. It was to be feared that, instead of touching and satisfying their imaginations, it would cause the Native Princes of India to look upon it as a menace to their independence. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), who probably knew more about India than any other Member of the House, said that the titles Queen and Empress had to be translated by exactly the same word. If that were so, where was the amplification? There was no evidence that this change would please India, and even if the Princes of India liked it, they knew the people of India would not. It required a very strong title indeed to touch the imagination of an Eastern people. There was a title of a Potentate, he believed, of Siam, which ran thus—"Brother of the Sun, Half-Brother to the Moon, Absolute Controller of the Ebb and Flow of the Sea, and Supreme Lord of the 24 Golden Umbrellas." That was something like a title for an Eastern Ruler. But indeed this was no subject to be met with a jest. There was a grave fear that, instead of touching and satisfying the imagination of a nation, we might stir up feelings of quite another kind. There were many educated Natives who recognized and appreciated our institutions, and was this title of Empress to be sent to them as a message of peace and goodwill? Was the House to stamp that despotic title upon them in perpetuity, and would it not be far more worthy of the country and safer for our rule, to leave India a share in our own old constitutional title, and a hope that they might in time without revolution, and without upsetting the British Raj, work out for themselves by degrees some of those constitutional forms of government which were the chief glory of ourselves and our colonies, but which were hardly compatible with the title of Empress.


said, he would not have risen at that late hour to make a few remarks, but he thought it was not right, after the Bill had reached the stage it had, that the Government, who had brought it forward, should be left its sole defenders. It was, to his mind, a remarkable fact that many of the speeches which had been delivered from the Opposition benches had wholly ignored the stage at which the Bill had arrived. Those speeches ought to have been spoken on the second reading, when the principle of empowering the Sovereign to assume the title was in question. He hoped, in spite of the predictions of dangers to arise under the Bill, the Government would steadily and quietly pursue their course, and he would not believe that at the present stage the Leaders of the Opposition would be followed by the rank and file of their Party in voting for a Resolution which would have the effect of destroying the purpose of the Bill. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had spoken of the mystery with which the proposed title had been concealed from the House; but he must surely have forgotten that with scarcely an exception the metropolitan Press assumed at once that the title was to be that of Empress. The noble Marquess had said it was more than he could do to adequately express his sense of the delicacy of the question. But the hon. and learned Member who followed on the other side neither expressed, nor apparently felt any delicacy whatever, and overlooked even the terms of the Motion of the noble Marquess in his opposition to the principle of the Bill. The noble Marquess had referred to the columns of the public Press as proof of the strongly antagonistic feeling to the measure which pervaded the country. The question, however, was whether that feeling was a reasonable or an unreasonable one, or whether it was the impulsive reasoning of men who felt that they had got an opportunity of keeping a Party together. Probably the last had much to do with the rapid change in public opinion, as represented by the Press, since this Bill was introduced. He had listened in vain for any arguments against the Bill. The noble Marquess and the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had both suggested that there were some great political considerations influencing the Government which could not be permitted to see the light of day, but there was no foundation for that assumption. Might not the political considerations referred to by the First Lord of the Treasury have reference, not to the Indian Princes, but to the greater Power on the other side of the Himalaya with which in India we were daily brought into contact? The other argument, that by the assumption of this title the personal sway of the Sovereign was to be rendered more direct and distinct, was altogether unsound, and those who used it knew very well that in the assumption of the title of Empress no change of policy was intended respecting the Princes of India. It would only emphasise and accentuate a state of facts already existing, and the Government was merely taking advantage of an auspicious occasion—the visit of the Prince of Wales to India—to carry out an object which had been long in contemplation. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford had tried to show that the assumption of the title of Empress would be impolitic, because in certain Treaties made with the Princes of India they had been treated as equals; but he kept back the fact that these Treaties were made by the Princes of India, not with the sovereign power of England, but with a trading company. It had been asked, Was the Queen of England to take the position held by the Emperors of Delhi?—but he maintained that Her Majesty was at this moment in a higher and more complete form Empress of India than any Emperor of Delhi that had ever lived. There was no danger of the Sovereign of this country copying anything that was bad in the conduct of the Emperors of Delhi. The arguments used on this point by the speakers on the other side would not bear serious comment; and, in fact, he regarded as shallow and hollow the opposition which had been offered to the Bill. With respect to the English aspect of the question, he did not share the apprehensions which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) had so gloomily foreshadowed. He did not think that the assumption of the title of Empress would in any degree depreciate or detract from the honour and dignity of the Throne of this country. The noble Marquess had stated that whatever might be the title assumed, it would have to be translated into the Native languages of India, and that the translation would be everything in the eyes of the Indian people. That was an assertion to which he gave a distinct denial. For the purposes of Government all that would be necessary would be to employ the word Empress in all Proclamations and public documents, leaving to each one who read them to translate them in his own way. He did hope that the House, having read the Bill a second time, would deliberately consider what the position would be if they refused to pass it through its remaining stages. Was it the wish of hon. Members opposite, either by act or deed, to place indignity on the Throne of this country? To read the Bill a second time, and then pass a Resolution compelling its withdrawal was in effect to place indignity on the Throne of this country. But he believed that the counsel of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) would prevail, and that the result would be to present to the nations of the world the spectacle—which we ought to present—of a united Parliament and a united people, with one mind and one purpose, indivisible and indissoluble.


said, there was a strong impression in the minds of many hon. Members of the House, including himself, in regard to the unusual, and he might say the inconvenient, haste with which Her Majesty's Government had chosen to press forward this important Bill. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen on the other side seemed to laugh at that assertion; but he would ask any hon. Member on either side of the House whether he had ever known of a case in which a Bill of so much importance had been so hastily pressed upon the House? Here was a Bill which the House was told greatly affected political considerations in our Empire of India, and which in regard to home affairs was of singular importance. It proposed a change in the title of our Sovereign, in which no change had been made since the beginning of the century. If there could be a doubt as to the inconvenient haste with which the Bill had been pressed, it must have been removed by the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Beckett-Denison). His hon. Friend complained that the present debate ought to have been raised on the second reading. Owing to the manner in which the Government had chosen to conduct the Bill, the House was now in the position of a second reading. It was not a month since the Bill was introduced, and only a week had elapsed since the House was told what the title would be. It was true it had been said that the object of the Bill was to make some alteration so as to recognize the transfer of India from the Company to the Crown, but the change in the title was the real meaning of the Bill. Feeling, as he and his Friends all did, in unison with his noble Friend the exceeding delicacy of the question, and having an exceeding dislike to cause any division, they allowed the Bill to pass the second reading, and it was rather unfair for hon. Members opposite to charge them with taking the present opportunity of discussing what was not brought before the House until the last moment. There was evidently some misconception on the part of some hon. Members with regard to the Motion of his noble Friend. That Motion, if carried, would not stop the Bill. He believed there was but one opinion in the House—that there was no abstract objection to recognize the transfer of the Government of India from the Company to the Queen; and he further believed there was a general opinion that if that recognition were ever made the present was the most opportune occasion for making it, when the Heir Apparent to the Throne was visiting our Indian Empire. It was true that his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich found fault with the terms in which the recognition was to be made, and said that the utmost care should be taken—and that the Government should prove that the utmost care was taken—that we asserted no right over the Princes of India which was not asserted at the time when the transfer took place. For his own part, he could not conceive any question more proper to raise; and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that if there existed any doubt upon the matter it must be removed. Up to the present time, however, no explanation had been given, and his fear was greatly increased by the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for he stated that the Queen was now in a different position, and the Government of India in a different position with regard to the Princes of India with respect to the Treaties which had been made with them than at the time of the transfer. The Proclamation issued at the time of the transfer distinctly stated this— We hereby announce to the Native Princes of India that all Treaties and Engagements made with them by or under the authority of the Honourable East India Company are by Us accepted, and will be scrupulously maintained; and We look for the like observance on their part.


said, he did not suggest that the terms of these Treaties were to undergo any alteration, but merely referred to the fact that at the time they were made with the East India Company, and that though the Queen's Proclamation did pledge that they would be maintained, the terms would probably have been different had it been the reigning Sovereign and not the Queen with whom the Treaties had been entered into.


said, Members had been told that what they said would be carefully reported in India; but he appealed to the hon. Gentleman whether feelings were not likely to be excited by saying that all was changed. The question raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich was whether there would be any deviation in the terms of the Bill. This, however, was not really the question before the House now. One of the objections to the Bill was with reference to the colonies, and it was that, if the title of the Queen were changed at all the colonies ought not to be forgotten, and another was that the title of Empress was one which ought not to be assumed by Her Majesty. Both these points were raised by his noble Friend's Resolution. If the House accepted the Resolution it could be embodied in a single clause of the Bill, and the object of the Bill—namely, the recognition of the transfer of the Government of India from the Company to the Crown—could be attained just as well as if the Resolution were not passed. Therefore, it was idle to charge his noble Friend with putting the House and the country in a false position. If the House recommended Her Majesty to assume the title mentioned by the Prime Minister last week it would actually make a change in the present acknowledgment of the colonies. The Proclamation of 1858, though not addressed directly to the colonies, was made all over India and was doubtless sent out officially to the colonies, and it had been quoted in almost every almanack and book which was likely to mention titles ever since. In that Proclamation there was a distinct acknowledgment of the colonies, Her Majesty being styled "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the Colonies and Dependencies thereof." A positive change was, therefore, being made, and the colonies would be ignored more than they now were. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that every mention of the colonies was an after-thought. Well, the Government had given very little time for after-thought. But the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. On the first day the question was discussed this subject of the colonies was mentioned, both by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) and himself. The Royal Colonial Institute had also addressed a very important memorial to Her Majesty, in which, while hailing with great satisfaction Her Majesty's intention to take an additional style and title in connection with India, they had expressed a belief that the Queen's subjects in her vast Colonial Empire should have some similar recognition accorded to them. The memorial mentioned the Proclamation of 1858, in which Her Majesty was styled Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the Colonies and Dependencies thereof in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia, Queen, Defender of the Faith. It was signed by the Duke of Manchester, as President of the Council of the Institute, which was composed of eminent gentlemen connected with almost every one of our colonies. The First Minister of the Crown had described the colonies as part of the United Kingdom—which they certainly were not; and the colonists as nugget finders and fortune hunters who merely went out to come back, be presented at Court, and settle down as country gentlemen at home. The colonists were surprised that they should be so described. What they knew was, that they were founders of a Commonwealth; and as they grew in age, wealth, and prosperity, the Government of this country would fail in their duty if they did not do everything in their power to preserve the existing union between the colonies and the Mother Country. This could not be done, however, by considering them a fluctuating body of individuals who merely went out to come back again, but by considering them as founders of great countries beyond the seas. The right hon. Gentleman showed a singular want of consideration for the colonists and made one statement which was astonishing beyond measure. He said he remembered 20 years ago an illustrious statesman who would have been glad to have received a Dukedom of Canada.


I made no statement of the kind. What I said was that a statesman of great eminence had thrown out the idea that there should be a Dukedom of Canada; but not that he should receive the Dukedom.


said, this was not a matter of much importance. What followed was far more material. The right hon. Gentleman said that Canada did not now exist, for it was called the Dominion. This was an extraordinary statement considering that the right hon. Gentleman was Leader of the House at the time when the Dominion of Canada was proclaimed. It was not a Dominion in place of Canada, but a union of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in one Dominion under the name of the Dominion of Canada. It was really as correct to say that Canada was no longer Canada because it was a Dominion, as it would be to say that Great Britain was no longer Great Britain because we talked of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Having been lately in the colony, he could say that it was still always spoken of as Canada; while the House of Commons there was spoken of as the Canadian, and not the Dominion, House of Commons. He alluded to this matter not because it much affected the question before the House, but because it showed that the question of the colonies could not have been much considered by the Government, or else the right hon. Gentleman could not have made such a mistake. He passed now to the question of the title which Her Majesty was to assume. It was said that the title of Empress was to be taken solely on account of India, and that it was desired and earnestly expected by the Princes of India. No proof, however, had been given of the existence of this desire. He could not believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer really meant the House to suppose that an address by the Talookdars of Oude, or a letter from the Rajah of Jeypore, furnished any sufficient evidence on this point. He had looked over severaladdresses sent here from India, and they generally followed the style of the Royal Proclamation. Why, then, was this title wanted? If translated, the same Oriental word would be used for Queen or Empress; we could make what translation we pleased. If not translated, the word "Queen" would have just the same effect as Empress. He had a rupee in his pocket. It was worth 2s., but would soon, he was told, owing to the depreciation of silver, be worth much less. The superscription it bore was "Victoria, Queen." Were these words to be changed to "Victoria, Empress?" He hoped not—at any rate until we were satisfied with respect to the depreciation of the currency. It would be very unwise that the change in the Queen's title should be made known to the Queen's Indian subjects by a depreciated coin. There seemed to him one good reason why the title of Empress was not so good for India as that of Queen, and it was this:—In India we were dealing with a very large majority of the population, who did not know the English language. They were accustomed to the title of Queen, and it was better not to subject them to any change. But there was a small portion of the people who did understand English, and, once we made this change, they would immediately try to discover the difference. Was it to be supposed that it would lead to the perpetuation of our rule if that intelligent minority were to be told that we were to have a Queen in England, while they were to have an Empress in India? He thought that they would find that Empress meant personal rule, and carried with it the Imperial idea more than did the word Queen. But the real point was that no necessity upon Indian grounds had been shown for the use of the words "Empress of India." If the Government had any information on that point, surely they would have laid it before the House; but no despatch from the Governor General of India and no Minute of the Council of India on the subject had been produced. They were bound therefore to consider what the effect would be in our own Islands. He asked them how they could hope to localize the highest title; could they suppose that everybody would follow their injunction in the matter, and that the Queen would be called Empress in India, and Queen elsewhere? Many allusions had been made to the newspapers, and his right hon. Friends behind him were said to have greater power over them than they ever supposed they had. He did not think they had had such friendly treatment from the newspaper Press of London. It had been stated that within the last week there had been a great change; but the fact was that it was only a week ago that the public knew that we were to have the title of Empress. ["No."] He certainly did not know it, nor did many of the Members of this House. But the newspapers which his right hon. Friends were supposed to influence—such as The Pall Mall Gazette—were not the only newspapers who took the view to which he referred. He did not know that he had seen his own views expressed anywhere so well as in that journal, which chiefly represented the opinions of hon. Members opposite, immediately after the first introduction of the Bill. The journal to which he referred said— To lower the English kingship to the level of a modern Emperor; to exchange the title of ten centuries for one of yesterday, would be a folly which no English Prince would dream of committing. And yet, if the title assumed in India be that of Emperor (or Empress), it may not be in the power of the Queen or her successors to prevent first an admixture and then a change. First Anglo-Indians, then grandiloquent journalists, then snobs and simpletons generally will come by degrees to speak, it may be, originally, of the Queen-Empress, then of the Empress-Queen, and at last of the Empress simply. A risk like this should not be lightly run, and Mr. Disraeli is the last man in England to hold it lightly. If he once realizes that such a corruption of the ordinary title of the English Monarch is possible, he will fully understand that it must be avoided at any rate." [Cries of "Name."] That was the opinion of The Standard. And from what had appeared in that well written paper since that time he had seen no reason to induce him to suppose that we could localize the title of Empress in India. The whole argument of the Prime Minister a week ago came to this—that this title of Empress would have great power over the Oriental imagination. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to argue as if imagination was solely an Oriental faculty, and that dull Anglo-Saxons could not equally possess it. But we were proud of our Kings and Queens, we revolted from the Imperial idea, and your title of Emperor, whether it should be so or not, was distasteful to the English imagination. It was really inconceivable to him why any Conservative Government or Party should push forward this Bill. Did hon. Members think that any Conservative Premier for the last 100 years would have proposed it? Would Pitt, would Peel, would even Lord Liverpool or Lord Castlereagh have done so? They would have viewed the matter in the same light as The Standard did, and as the majority of the Tory Party viewed it, until they found that for Party purposes they must support what was proposed. The Conservatives were the men who had forced on this discussion. They were the Radical Party on this occasion. There were now two schools of Radicalism, one of which had been educated by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Forster) was a follower of the old school of Radicals, and to his mind all the charges against Radicalism would be true if they attempted what would indeed be a dangerous Radicalism—namely, to dig about the roots of the loyalty of the people to their Monarch. He did not suppose there ever was a time when there was a stronger feeling in favour of our hereditary Monarchy than the present. It was a reasonable feeling—a feeling which the experience of Europe would impress upon us still more strongly. It did not arise merely from the circumstances of the civilization of the time; it was strengthened by the loyal manner in which Her Most Gracious Majesty had so long fulfilled her constitutional duties. Her public actions and her private virtues had increased the hold of Royalty on the affections of the people. And was this the time to tamper with that feeling? The wise and beneficent rule of Queen Victoria had made the Royal title more dear to the British people than it had ever been since the time of Queen Elizabeth, and even more dear than it was then, because whilst Elizabeth was beloved by many, she was hated by others. Her present Majesty reigned in the hearts of her subjects; and was this then a time to add to that old and honoured title of Queen, which Her Majesty had made a symbol of glory and of freedom as never before, the name of Empress, which was a symbol of despotism? In England they believed in Monarchy, but there were some countries which did not. What did they find in France now? The greatest patriots in France were reluctantly forced to abide by a Republic; because, having lost the hope of a constitutional Monarchy, they had to choose between a Republic and an Empire. Was this, then, a time when, they should force our working men to ask themselves whether, after all, our Monarchy was not in some way tainted by association with that Imperial idea which was abhorrent to their sentiments? What was the opinion of intelligent foreigners on this subject? Had they found one who was not utterly surprised at the conduct of Her Majesty's Government? They could not understand why they did not leave well alone. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope), while sympathizing with the dislike to the new title, would not vote for the Motion of his noble Friend, because if successful it might be regarded as a Party victory. But hon. Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House wanted no Party victory. The Government would incur no humiliation in yielding to the patriotic feeling which had been called forth throughout the country. By making an alteration in the Bill of no importance as regarded India, they might render it acceptable to England. He called on the Government to re-consider this matter, and not to force their followers, by a strict Party majority, to hasten the passage of this innovation, which was distasteful to the country, contrary not only to the instincts, or it might, perhaps, be called the prejudices, but also contrary to the convictions, the good sense, and the good feeling of the great majority of Her Majesty's subjects.


said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had complained of the incon- venient haste with which this Bill had been pressed on. He could sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends upon this point. It seemed that a week had not been long enough to enable them to concoct a Resolution which was either intelligible or grammatical. Every other Amendment placed on the Paper had been withdrawn except that of the noble Lord, and for what did he ask his Friends to vote? The question before the House was whether it was advisable to enable Her Majesty to make an addition to the Royal Style and Title, and the noble Lord moved an Amendment to say that—"This House is of opinion that it is inexpedient to impair the ancient and Royal dignity of the Crowm by the assumption"—that is, by the House—"of the style and title of Emperor." These were the words of the Resolution, and he could only express his surprise that after a week's deliberation the noble Lord had not been able to place something less absurd on the Notice Paper. The right hon. Gentleman said it was intelligible; but could the House of Commons, individually or collectively, take the title of Emperor? The right hon. Gentleman stated two objections to the Bill. The first of these was that it did not apply to the colonies, and the second was that the title of Empress was repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen.


said, he had never stated that the title of Empress would be acceptable to the people of the colonies. What he complained of was that the Government had omitted mention of the colonies.


That was the very point. The right hon. Gentleman brought down a paper connected with the Colonial Institute, which he said represented colonial feeling. In that paper it was stated that the colonies were delighted with the Bill, and asked for similar recognition. Yet the right hon. Gentleman asked his Friends to oppose a Bill by which the title of Empress might possibly be assumed by Her Majesty, and urged in support of his proposal that the colonies wanted a similar recognition. As to the colonies being deeply grieved, he had lived for some years in Canada, and his impression was that if there was one thing the colonists would resent more than another, it would be that of being placed in a category dif- ferent from and lower than that occupied by the inhabitants of these Islands. But if they were going to use, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested they should, words that would make Her Majesty Sovereign of the colonies, they would place them distinctly in a different position. Alluding to the speech of the late Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman had laid down such dangerous doctrines, and made statements so pernicious, that it was absolutely essential that the Government should flatly contradict them. The right hon. Gentleman found fault with the Preamble of the Bill, and said it was not in accordance with the Act regulating the Government of India; he stated that India was not governed in the name of the Queen, and he read all the first clause; but he stopped short of the second clause, the first words of which said that India should be governed in the name of Her Majesty. But why did he attach so much importance to that point? He said they were going to take some power in India which they did not possess before, and therefore Indian Princes would by this Bill be asked to surrender their supremacy. But there were no Princes in India that were supreme; they were all subordinate; and that was proved by the terms of the Sunnud Adoption of 1861 which was addressed to every Native Prince, and which must have come before the Cabinet of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister. Its concluding words were— Be assured that nothing shall disturb the engagement thus made so long as your House is loyal to the Crown and faithful to the conditions of the Treaties, grants, engagements, and obligations to the British Government. That established, beyond the possibility of contradiction, that there was no such thing as political supremacy attaching to Princes in India. They had been asked why they did not produce the opinion of the Governor General; but the strongest possible evidence of his opinion had been given by his spontaneously making Mr. Forsyth, in his mission to Yarkund, the representative of the Empress of Hindustan, in order that he might secure to the subjects of the Native Princes of India the same advantages as were secured for the subjects of Her Majesty. His right hon. Friend had pointed out that no Native State had the power of representing itself at any foreign Court, and in consequence of that the political officers of the Queen protected the subjects of Native States just in the same way as they protected our own subjects, and that not because they were the servants of the Queen of England, but the servants of the paramount power in India. It was for that reason that if the Bill passed Her Majesty would adopt the title of Empress, because it was the only word in the English language which expressed the peculiar position she occupied in India. Her position was twofold. Her Majesty had over the dominions which had been transferred to her the same rights of sovereignty as she had elsewhere; but over and above that, she had certain rights over the independent Native States because she was the paramount power. It was not correct to say it was immaterial whether Her Majesty took the title of Queen or Empress because it would be translated by precisely the same Oriental word, for he could only state that he had had the various Proclamations issued since 1859 examined, and he found that the word Padishah, which they were told signified Queen, did not appear in any one of those documents. The title Padishah had never been claimed by any one but Mahomedans, and he did not see therefore why they should force Her Majesty to assume a title which none but Mahomedans had ever assumed before. The House must not look at that Amendment or Resolution simply by itself. They had had the most dangerous doctrines laid down by the right hon. Member for Greenwich. He said that any man who questioned our paramount power in India, and more especially if that man was an ex-Premier, laid down a most dangerous doctrine. [Mr. GLADSTONE denied ever having done that.] The right hon. Gentleman had said there were Native Princes in India who were politically supreme. [Mr. Gladstone: Never.] The right hon. Gentleman's words were— When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) says that the Princes of India desire this change to be made, does he mean to assure us—and if he does I shall require distinct evidence in support of it—that the Princes of India who hitherto have enjoyed political supremacy desire to surrender it through the medium of this Bill. If we are the paramount Power, no Native Prince is politically supreme. If the Native Princes are politically supreme, we are not the paramount Power; and whoever says that the Native Princes are politically supreme denies that we are the paramount Power. There was not a single statesman who had held a high office in India who would not tell them that without exercising paramount power our government in India would be an impossibility. The Amendment before the House said that Her Majesty might make an addition to her title relating to India, but it excluded the one word which in our language expressed her paramount power, while it suggested the use of a word which expressed only a part of her power, and if that Amendment were adopted it would spread consternation in the mind of every official in India. They were asked to accept the Amendment because the people of England were against the title of Emperor. Was it not curious that he, a metropolitan Member, living in the midst of his constituents, should be told by a Scotch Member that the people of England were opposed to that title? And when he heard that the working men of England were averse to that title, did any hon. Member pretend that the working men would think any the worse of the title of Her Majesty because Empress was a mere appendage to it—an appendage which she enjoyed because she was the Queen of England? A good deal was said the other day about the title of "Defender of the Faith," and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), with a sneer, said Her Majesty was defender of many faiths; but on that point he wished to read a passage from Her Majesty's Proclamation which the Natives of India well understood— Firmly relying Ourselves on the truth of Christianity, and acknowledging with gratitude the solace of Religion, We disclaim alike the Right and the Desire to impose our Convictions on any of Our Subjects. We declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure that none be in any wise favored, none molested or disquieted by reason of their Religious Faith or Observances; but that all shall alike enjoy the equal and impartial protection of the Law: and We do strictly charge and enjoin all those who may be in authority under Us, that they abstain from all interference with the Religious Belief or Worship of any of Our Subjects, on pain of Our highest Displeasure. The Natives of India knew well what Emperor meant. Two or three mails had lately arrived from India, and in not one of the Indian papers that had arrived by those mails had he seen anything but approbation of the proposition that Her Majesty should take a title with reference to our Indian dominions. One of the first difficulties in the way of governing the people was the difficulty of ascertaining accurately the opinions of the people. There were a great number of different races with different laws, customs, and language, but they none of them thought it possible that they should be well governed except under a Monarch of some sort or another, and the title now proposed had the unanimous approval of both Princes and peasants alike. It was therefore a little hard that this Bill, which they knew their fellow-subjects in India were unanimously in favour of, should be abandoned in deference to the opinion of Mr. Griffiths and the Government bench of the Opposition.

MR. T. CAVE moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Thomas Cave.)


said, he hoped the Motion for adjournment would not be pressed. He had done all in his power in order that every Gentleman might have an opportunity of speaking. No doubt the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Noel) who had given Notice of an Amendment wished to address the House, and he would take care that they should have an attentive hearing. As far as he himself was concerned, he was ready to address the House if necessary; but he was so satisfied with the course of the debate that he was perfectly ready to waive his right, if he might call it so, to address the House, and would listen to the two hon. Gentlemen if they would favour the House with their opinion before the division.


supported the Motion for adjournment, because he thought the House should have time to ascertain the opinion of the people of this country and of the Princes and people of India.


also hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would agree to an adjournment, as at that late hour no Mem- ber on the back benches would have an opportunity of addressing the House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 324: Majority 132.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."


said, that, notwithstanding the majority against the adjournment, there was a strong feeling out-of-doors that this question should be considered further by the public. They were only told a week ago of the title that Her Majesty was likely to assume, and, although the speech of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), made before the Motion for adjournment, was listened to with attention, it was obvious, from the temper of the House, that the speeches that might be delivered by other hon. Members would not be listened to with equal patience. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. James.)


Sir, I have sat in this House nearly 40 years, and I have never heard such an unconstitutional reason for the adjournment of the House as that which I have listened to with shame from the hon. Member. After the significant vote which has just been given, I was prepared to make to hon. Gentlemen opposite the same offer I had made before—namely, to secure for them, as far as I could—and I am confident I should succeed in doing so—an opportunity of stating fully and freely their opinions on the question now before the House. As far as I can learn, there are only two hon. Members who are really anxious to address the House, and I am sure that the House is prepared to listen to them. I trust, therefore, the hon. Member (Mr. James), whose experience in Parliament is not very considerable, will see that it is not the custom of this House to adjourn our debates in order to stir up animosity, and that after the decision that has just been taken he will not persist in his Motion. If he does, I shall divide the House again, and I shall take that division as significant of the opinion of the House on the Bill.


Sir, I have no desire, and I had no desire for the previous Division, except so far as in my power to consult the wishes and convenience of the House; and if I did not interfere before the last Division to offer any advice to hon. Members who sit on this side of the House, it was because I was quite unable, in the short discussion that took place, to gather accurately whether or not there existed a strong desire for the adjournment of the debate. I was aware that there were several Members ready to address the House. I did not think it was an unfair demand; and as this is the first occasion that the whole night has been given to this important subject, I thought that if an adjournment was asked for it should be granted. But it is quite evident, after the Division which has taken place, that there is a strong feeling in the House in favour of concluding the debate; and, under those circumstances, I think the debate should be allowed to proceed. The statement that this is not a Party Question has not been well received by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can assure you that in making that statement I do so with perfect sincerity; but whether it be a Party question or not, I have no desire, on this occasion at all events, to employ those methods of Party warfare which are sometimes resorted to. I hope, under the circumstances, the Motion for the Adjournment will not be pressed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.


said, the speeches he had listened to from hon. Members opposite had all been addressed, not to the Motion of the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), but to the speeches made on a former occasion by his right hon. Friends (Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe). The Liberal Party had been taunted with attempting to do something which was unconstitutional and ungracious, and they were further accused of having made this a Party question. He denied that they had made it so. It was the way in which the measure had been forced upon the House that had made the question a Party one. There had been an established precedent in this country that when anything intimately connected with the Crown was to be brought forward, to prevent such a debate as this the Minister of the day consulted with the Leader of the Oppo- sition. But that had not been done in this case, and he ventured to say that if it had, what had been called unseemly discussion would not have occurred at all. He gathered from the speech of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) that the Government were full of information as to the feelings of the people of India in favour of this measure; but the information had not been allowed to come before the House. In olden times the Dukes of Normandy, Anjou, and Lorraine were liege-lords of a King and not of an Emperor. When once this Bill had passed, it would be beyond the power of the House of Commons to say whether the Sovereign of this Empire was not to be classed henceforth with the Rulers of Morocco and Hayti, and to prevent the new title being assumed in these islands.


rose to repel a statement which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), who made a misquotation, from a book which he (Sir George Campbell) had written 25 years ago, in a most intolerable way. He had not read that book for nearly 25 years; but when he heard the quotation he said to himself—"Surely I could never have been such a fool as to have written this." He had since procured the book and looked at it, and he found that the hon. and learned Member had taken one part of a passage and then gone to another on quite a different subject, pieced the two together, and given the joint result as his opinion. He repudiated altogether such a method of quotation. He then held, as Lord Dalhousie held, that by fair and legitimate lapses in failure of heirs our territories in India might be extended. He had altered his opinion in some respects from those he held 25 years ago, because the state of things had much altered, but he thought there was no ground whatever for attacking the memory of Lord Dalhousie. He came to the House that day to support the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs, and was still inclined to support it, though he must confess that he did not agree with much that the noble Lord had stated in his speech in support of it. He agreed with much that had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had opposed the Amendment. As regarded whether a Bill should pass, he always had been in favour of such a Bill, and he believed most of the House were so. The question came to this, what the title should be? He was surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say that our predecessors, as Lords Paramount of India, had always been called Emperors, when the fact was that for 100 years we had called the Great Mogul, the Monarch who had reigned at Delhi "King" and only "King." That was the designation always officially given to the greatest Monarch who ever ruled in India. That was one translation of his title; and, therefore, on that point he parted company with the right hon. Gentleman. No one in India had ever applied a title to Her Majesty which must be translated Empress instead of Queen. There was another view of the case which was important. There was a section of the people in India who were known as "Young India." These were now educated by the English, and, proud of their education, indulged very much in what was known as tall talk. They considered themselves much abler fellows than the English, and their custom was to magnify everything Indian, and to minimize everything English. They might think an Empress grander than a Queen, but he did not see why they should be gratified at our expense. He did not see why Her Majesty should not be styled Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, of India, and of the Colonies.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 305; Noes 200: Majority 105.

Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C. Bates, E.
Agnew, R. V. Bateson, Sir T.
Alexander, Colonel Bathurst, A. A.
Allen, Major Beach, rt. hn. Sir M.H.
Allsopp, C. Beach, W. W. B.
Allsopp, H. Bective, Earl of
Anstruther, Sir W. Benett-Stanford, V. F.
Arkwright, F. Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.
Ashbury, J. L. Beresford, G. de la Poer
Assheton, R. Beresford, Colonel M.
Astley, Sir J. D. Birley, H.
Bagge, Sir W. Blackburne, J. I.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Boord, T. W.
Balfour, A. J. Bourke, hon. R.
Baring, T. C. Bourne, Colonel
Barne, F. St. J. N. Bousfield, Major
Barrington, Viscount Bowyer, Sir G.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Brady, J.
Bright, R. Forester, C. T. W.
Brise, Colonel R. Forsyth, W.
Broadley, W. H. H. Fraser, Sir W. A.
Brooks, M. Freshfield, C. K.
Brooks, W. C. Gallwey, Sir W. P.
Bruce, hon. T. Galway, Viscount
Bruen, H. Gardner, J. T. Agg-
Brymer, W. E. Gardner, R. Richardson-
Buckley, Sir E.
Burrell, Sir P. Garnier, J. C.
Buxton, Sir R. J. Gibson, E.
Callan, P. Gilpin, Sir R. T.
Cameron, D. Goldney, G.
Campbell, C. Gooch, Sir D.
Carington. hn. Col. W. Gordon, rt. hon. E. S.
Cartwright, F. Gore, W. R. O.
Cawley, C. E. Gorst, J. E.
Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G. Grantham, W.
Chaplin, Colonel E. Greenall, Sir G.
Chaplin, H. Greene, E.
Chapman, J. Gregory, G. B.
Charley, W. T. Halsey, T. F.
Christie, W. L. Hamilton, I. T.
Churchill, Lord R. Hamilton, Lord G.
Clifton, T. H. Hamilton, Marquess of
Clive, hon. Col. G. W. Hamilton, hon. R. B.
Close, M. C. Hanbury, R. W.
Clowes, S. W. Hardcastle, E.
Cobbett, J. M. Hardy, rt. hon. G.
Cobbold, T. C. Hardy, J. S.
Cochrane, A.D.W.R.B. Harvey, Sir R. B.
Cole, Col. hon. H. A. Hay,rt.hon.Sir J.C.D.
Coope, O. E. Heath, R.
Corbett, Colonel Hermon, E.
Cordes, T. Hervey, Lord F.
Corry, hon. H. W. L. Heygate, W. U.
Corry, J. P. Hick, J.
Cotton, rt. hn. W. J. R. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Crichton, Viscount Hill, A. S.
Cross, rt. hon. R. A. Hinchingbrook, Visct.
Cubitt, G. Hogg, Sir J. M.
Cuninghame, Sir W. Holford, J. P. G.
Cust, H. C. Holker, Sir J.
Dalkeith, Earl of Holland, Sir H. T.
Dalrymple, C. Holmesdale, Viscount
Davenport, W. B. Holt, J. M.
Denison, C. B. Home, Captain
Denison, W. B. Hood, hon. Captain A. W. A. N.
Denison, W. E.
Dickson, Major A. G. Hope, A. J. B. B.
Digby, hon. Capt. E. Hubbard, E.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. Hunt, rt. hon. G. W.
Douglas, Sir G. Jervis, Colonel
Dyott, Colonel R. Johnson, J. G.
Eaton, H. W. Johnstone, H.
Edmonstone, Admiral Sir W. Johnstone, Sir F.
Jolliffe, hon. S.
Egerton, hon. A. F. Kavanagh, A. MacM.
Egerton, Sir P. G. Kennard, Colonel
Egerton, hon. W. Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Elcho, Lord Knight, F. W.
Elliot, Sir G. Knowles, T.
Elliot, G. W. Lacon, Sir E. H. K.
Elphinstone,Sir J.D.H. Lawrence, Sir T.
Emlyn, Viscount Learmonth, A.
Eslington, Lord Lee, Major V.
Estcourt, G. B. Legard, Sir C.
Ewing, A. O. Legh, W. J.
Fellowes, E. Leigh, Lt.-Col. E.
Fielden, J. Leighton, S.
Finch, G. H. Lewis, C. E.
Floyer, J. Lindsay, Col. R. L.
Folkestone, Viscount Lindsay, Lord
Lloyd, S. Salt, T.
Lloyd, T. E. Sanderson, T. K.
Lopes, Sir M. Sandford, G. M. W.
Lorne, Marquess of Sandon, Viscount
Lowther, hon. W. Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.
Lowther, J. Scott, Lord H.
Lusk, Sir A. Scott, M. D.
Macduff, Viscount Scourfield, Sir J. H.
Mac Iver, D. Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N.
Majendie, L. A. Shirley, S. E.
Makins, Colonel Shute, General
Malcolm, J. W. Sidebottom, T. H.
Manners,rt.hn.Lord J. Simonds, W. B.
March, Earl of Smith, A.
Marten, A. G. Smith, F. C.
Maxwell, Sir W. S. Smith, W. H.
Mellor, T. W. Smollett, P. B.
Mills, A. Somerset, Lord H.R.C.
Mills, Sir C. H. Spinks, Mr. Serjeant
Monckton, F. Stafford, Marquess of
Montgomerie, R. Stanhope, hon. E.
Montgomery, Sir G. G. Stanhope, W. T. W. S.
Moore, S. Stanley, hon. F.
Morgan, hon. F. Starkey, L. R.
Mowbray, rt. hon. J.R. Starkie, J. P. C.
Mulholland, J. Steere, L.
Naghten, Lt.-Col. Stewart, M. J.
Nevill, C. W. Storer, G.
Neville-Grenville, R. Sykes, C.
Newport, Viscount Talbot, J. G.
Noel, rt, hon. G. J. Taylor, rt. hon. Col.
North, Colonel Tennant, R.
Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H. Thornhill, T.
Thwaites, D.
O'Clery, K. Thynne, Lord H. F.
O'Gorman, P. Tollemache, hon. W.F.
O'Neill, hon. E. Torr, J.
Onslow, D. Tremayne, J.
Palk, Sir L. Turnor, E.
Parker, Lt.-Col. W. Twells, P.
Peek, Sir H. W. Wait, W. K.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. Walker, T. E.
Pell, A. Wallace, Sir R.
Pemberton, E. L. Walpole, hon. F.
Pennant, hon. G. Walpole, rt. hon. S.
Peploe, Major Walsh, hon. A.
Percy, Earl Watney, J.
Perkins, Sir F. Wellesley, Captain
Phipps, P. Wells, E.
Plunket, hon. D. R. Wethered, T. O.
Plunkett, hon. R. Wheelhouse, W. S. J.
Polhill-Turner, Capt. Wilmot, Sir H.
Praed, C. T. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Puleston, J. H. Wolff, Sir H. D.
Raikes, H. C. Woodd, B. T.
Read, C. S. Wroughton, P.
Rendlesham, Lord Wyndham, hon. P.
Repton, G. W. Yarmouth, Earl of
Ridley, M. W. Yeaman, J.
Ripley, H. W. Yorke, hon. E.
Ritchie, C. T. Yorke, J. R.
Rodwell, B. B. H.
Roebuck, J. A. TELLERS.
Round, J. Dyke, Sir W. H.
Ryder, G. R. Winn, R.
Acland, Sir T. D. Ashley, hon. E. M.
Anderson, G. Backhouse, E.
Anstruther, Sir R. Barclay, A. C.
Antrobus, Sir E. Barclay, J. W.
Bass, A. Harcourt, Sir W. V.
Baxter, rt. hon. W. E. Harrison, C.
Bazley, Sir T. Harrison, J. F.
Beaumont, Major F. Hartington, Marq. of
Beaumont, W. B. Havelock, Sir H.
Bell, I. L. Hayter, A. D.
Biddulph, M. Henry, M.
Blake, T. Herbert, H. A.
Brassey, H. A. Herschell, F.
Brassey, T. Hill, T. R.
Briggs, W. E. Holland, S.
Bright, J. Holms, J.
Brocklehurst, W. C. Hopwood, C. H.
Brogden, A. Howard, hn. C. W. G.
Brown, J. C. Ingram, W. J.
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord E. James, Sir H.
Burt, T. James, W. H.
Cameron, C. Jenkins, D. J.
Campbell, Sir G. Jenkins, E.
Campbell-Bannerman, H. Johnstone, Sir H.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Carter, R. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, rt. hon. E.
Cartwright, W. C.
Cave, T. Laing, S.
Cavendish, Lord F. C. Lambert, N. G.
Cavendish, Lord G. Laverton, A.
Chadwick, D. Law, rt. hon. H.
Chambers, Sir T. Lawrence, Sir J. C.
Cholmeley, Sir H. Lawson, Sir W.
Clarke, J. C. Leatham, E. A.
Clifford, C. C. Leeman, G.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Lefevre, G. J. S.
Colman, J. J. Leith, J. F.
Conyngham, Lord F. Lewis, O.
Corbett, J. Lloyd, M.
Cotes, C. C. Locke, J.
Cowan, J. Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Cowen, J. Lubbock, Sir J.
Cowper, hon. H. F. Macgregor, D.
Crawford, J. S. Mackintosh, C. F.
Cross, J. K. M'Arthur, A.
Davies, R. M'Arthur, W.
Dilke, Sir C. W. M'Lagan, P.
Dillwyn, L. L. M'Laren, D.
Dixon, G. Maitland, J.
Dodds, J. Maitland, W. F.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G. Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.
Duff, M. E. G. Marling, S. S.
Dunbar, J. Martin, P. W.
Dundas, J. C. Meldon, C. H.
Earp, T. Middleton, Sir A. E.
Edwards, H. Milbank, F. A.
Egerton, hon. Adm. F. Monk, C. J.
Ellice, E. Morgan, G. O.
Errington, G. Morley, S.
Evans, T. W. Mundella, A. J.
Fawcett, H. Muntz, P. H.
Ferguson, R. Noel, E.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E. Nolan, Captain
Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W. W. Norwood, C. M.
O'Brien, Sir P.
Fletcher, I. O'Byrne, W. R.
Foljambe, F. J. S. O'Callaghan, hon. W.
Forster, Sir C. O'Conor, D. M.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E. O'Donoghue, The
Gladstone,rt. hn. W.E. O'Reilly, M. W.
Gladstone, W. H. O'Shaughnessy, R.
Goldsmid, Sir F. O'Sullivan, W. H.
Goldsmid, J. Palmer, C. M.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. Pease, J. W.
Gourley, E. T. Peel, A. W.
Gower, hon. E. F. L. Pender, J.
Grieve, J. J. Pennington, F.
Philips, R. N. Talbot, C. R. M.
Playfair, rt. hon. L. Tavistock, Marquess of
Plimsoll, S. Taylor, P. A.
Portman, hn. W. H. B. Torrens, W. T. M'C.
Potter, T. B. Tracy, hon. C. R. D. Hanbury-
Price, W. E.
Ralli, P. Trevelyan, G. O.
Ramsay, J. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Rathbone, W. Vivian, A. P.
Redmond, W. A. Vivian, H. H.
Reed, E. J. Waddy, S. D.
Richard, H. Walter, J.
Robertson, H. Ward, M. F.
Russell, Lord A. Waterlow, Sir S. H.
St. Aubyn, Sir J. Watkin, Sir E. W.
Samuda, J. D'A. Weguelin, T. M.
Samuelson, B. Whalley, G. H.
Sheridan, H. B. Whitbread, S.
Simon, Mr. Serjeant Whitworth, B.
Smith, E. Williams, W.
Stacpoole, W. Wilson, C.
Stansfeld, rt. hon. J. Wilson, Sir M.
Stanton, A. J. Young, A. W.
Stevenson, J. C.
Stuart, Colonel TELLERS.
Sullivan, A. M. Adam, rt. hon. W. P.
Swanston, A. Kensington, Lord

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.