Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page



PAMJAMMTAM INTELLIGENCE. ,+- THE ROYAL TITLES BILL.—Mr. Disraeli moved that the House go into committee on the Royal Titles Bill, and Mr. Bass caused great laughter hy presenting a petition from the Bev. Mr. Griffiths, of Derby, against the progress of the ■bill, after which the Marqms of Hartiagton moved, as an amendment, the resolution of which he had given notiee, ieclaring it to be inexpedient to impair the ancient and Royal dignity of the Crown by the assumption of the style and title of Empress. At the outset he remarked that he had unaertakeii this duty with much reluctance, at which there was much cheering from the Ministerial side, followed by a counter ciieer from the Opposition. He did not blame the Government for the introduction of the bill, because, unless they had been possessed of the gift of prophesy, they could not have fore- seen the growing repugnance with which it was reeardea by the public. (Here there were loud cries of No from the Ministerialists.) The Marquis went on, amid loud cries of "Oh! to point out that this feeling was entirely spon- taneous, and had not been stimulated by articles in the Press or by speeches in the House," and the result-would "be that if the bill were passed her Majesty would not as- sume the title with that unirersal acclamation which was desirable. But he did bltnne. the manner in which the Government had conducted the bill, and he maintained that there had been unnecessary mystery. In fact the House had no sufficient information before it as to the reasons which induced the Government to intro- duce the bill, or as to the opinion of India on the subject, or as to its results in India. Mr. Disraeli had alluded to certain political conditions, but only to depre- cate the introduction of them into the debate. The Marquis, following Mr. Gladstone's line of argument, canvassed the "i-mguage of the preamble, and maintained that if it was not intended to extend the Queen's power beyond its pre- sent limits in India it would be necessary to make the -preamble correspond with the definition of India in the Act of 18.53. The House had never been in- formed by what word the Queen s title would be translated, bat he maintained that the title of Queen could be translated into words implying the highest dignity. Dealing with the colonial aspect of the question, he maintained that the Colonist would feel it a slur if, when a, cha.iige was made in the Queen's title, they were not mentioned. Next, he discussed Lord Elcho's amendment, part of which he maintained was unnecessary and the other useless. Her Majesty, of course, would exercise the powers conferred on her in accordance with the will of her people but it was impossible to insure that at no future time would the title of King be absorbed in or be subordinated to the title of Emperor. He-dilated on the inconveniences and anomalies which must result from mixing up the Imperial and Royal titles, especially in the Church Services, and concluded by declaring that as King and Queen had been go d enough for us and our fore- fathers they would be good enough for our successors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer sympathised with Lord Har- tington's reluctance in taking up so decided a position of antagonism to a bill which was robbed of its grace if it were not passed unanimously, but he could hardly be serious in urging some of the arguments which he had employed as to°the Royal being merged in the Imperial title. The title of Empress would be entirely local, and she would still be Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, notwithstanding the addition of Empress. A more senseless and unreasoning panie and prejudice than that which had be^n excited by this bill Sir Stafford said, he had never known. The rea- sons urged in fa\mir of it were not only self-condem- natory they were weak, and at the same time mest dan- gerous but if the bill was to be resisted on party grounds (here there were loud cheers from the Mimsteria.1 Benches), or on any other grounds, they must be seriously encountered. But it was the Opposition, and not the Ministry, which was responsible for raising these delicate questions. Was the bill opposed on Mr..Lowe's ground that we night one day lose India; or on Mr. Glad- stone's more dategeroug doctrine, that it would in some way change the relations between the Queen and the independent princes of India P It would not change her position towsrds them by one iota. There was not a State in India that did not acknowledge our paramount power, not one which possessed the power of making war er treaties, or could regulate its succession. The British Power stood in exactly the position to them which was expressed by the title of Emperor, and the title of Queen would express either ton much or too little. By a. quotation from Lord Canning's despatch, he showed that the former Sovereigns of Dehli were spoken of as Emperors, and, ;-?mang other pieces of evidence, he mentioned that the Maharajah of Jeypore, at the time of the Prince's con- Talescence, had sent an address, in English, to the Queen, in which he designated her Empress of Hindostan. As to the colonies, that argument, he believed, was a mere aftertkought, and, like the other arguments from the Opposition Bench, invented to prove that the panic was not altogether groundless. The celonies "were always with us," and there had been no change in their political condition like that which occurred when India was taken over from the Company. The people of India, he urged, would feel this measure as a compliment to them, it would give satisfaction to them, and it would be a. great misfortune if, through unfounded prejudices, they were dis- appointed. A longdiscussionforand Bg.inst then føllowed, which was ioined in by S r W. Harcourt, Mr. Windham,^ Sir E. Colebrooke, Sir W. Eraser, Mr. G'Shaughnessy, Mr. Lamg, 1"11'. Hermon, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Grant Duff, Mr. Chap- lin, Mr. Roebuck, Lord Elcho, M r. Sullivan, and others. Ulti- mately Mr. T. Cave moved the adjournment of the debate, to which Mr. Disraeli objected. On a division the motion for adjournment was negatived, by 324 to 192 and. Mr. James then moved theadjournmentof the fcJ ouse. Lord Harlington recom- mended the withdrawal of the motion, and, Mr James having withdrawn his motion, a division was taken at half-past one. The result was a majority of 105 in favour of the Govern- metlt-305 to 200, which was hailed with enthusiastic cheers from the Ministerial benches. The House then went into Committee on the bill, and progress was immediately re- (Torted. Before tLe House again went into Committee on the Royal Titles Bill, Mr. Disraeli, with a view of removing misconception, made a supplementary statement as to the advice which the Government would tender tot be Queen. It was never intended that this title of Empress, which, for local purposes and for considerations of high policy, her Majesty was about to adopt, should be substituted for her superior and supreme title of Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and in no circumstances would her Majesty's Ministers advise her to assume the title of Empress in England. He contradicted also the rumour tha.t the Queen, on assuming the title of Empress in India, would be advised to comer on her children and agnates an Imperial designation, so that they would be called Royal and Imperial Highnesses. There never was the slightest foundation for such a report, and the step would be one which her Majesty's Ministers would entirely disapprove. The Marquis of Hartington ngretted that the explanation had not been made before; but, though it was satisfactory so far as it went, it did not remove all the objections to the bill. What was still apprehended was that the Imperial title would gradu- ally come into use here conjointly with the ancient title of the Queen, and that it would be conferred on the members of the Royal Family. Mr. Disraeli's statement, however, would not touch the point of the colonies, nor of the extent of the India to which the title was to be applied. The House then went into committee, and several amendments were proposed, which caused ammated discussion, but they were all ultimately withdrawn with the exception of a motion to in- troduce the word Royal before Style and Title" in the body of the Clause, moved by Serjeant Simon, and ob- jected to by the Government as unnecessary, On a division the amendment was negatived by .71 to 92. The Chairman was subsequently ordered to report the bill without amend- ments to the House, and the Third Reading was fixed for Thursday. —4*— IN THE pARLiAMBrs XAHT PAPEBS recently ssgnetl appears one en the Civil Service Estimates, .s -hc I in which an additional earn of £ 18,000 is saded to the previous estimates for Diplomatic Services. EMBEZZLEMENT BY A SECRETARY. Charles Frederick Cole, secretary to the Journeymen Carvers' Trade Society, was charged at the Marl. borough street Police-court, London, with embezzling several small EUUIS of money handed to him on sc. count of the society. A paper was read, in which the accused admitted defalcations to the amount of £ 29. He was committed for tried, two sureties in £ 50 being require* NEW USE FOR CARRIER PIGEON?.—It is con- t em related to open communication, gays a Harwich correspondent, between the light vessels and tbe shore by means of carrier pigeon". Several gentle- men connected with the Trinity House visited thia town for the pirpose of ascertaining what arrange- menta could be made in the event of the project being adopted. The birds could travel to and from the town and the Kentish Knock and Sunk light ship?, and would doubtless prove of great service in ea,36 of emergency in conveying information relative to shipwrecks. POUCS OTJTRA.GE.—inr ivoaert Laruen, at the Guildhall Police court, made further irquiry into the subject of the police outrage at Aldgate on the occasion of her Majesty's rectlntvisit to the East end, and, on being informed that the man who abruck tha blow ha.d not yet been discovered, remarked that the outrage waa 50 palpable, and so many persons must have wifcne-ssed it, that there ought not to be the shadow of a difficulty in securing the offender. THE IMPRISONMENT OF AN EDITOR.-On the ISbh of February the Parici Correctional Tribunal sentenced the editor of the Ropv.H'ique Frarr.riie to one month's*imprisonment and a fiae of 2000 francs for publishing an article in which ata-emerits reflect- ing on the political conduct of M. Buffet were sum- marised from a pamphlet. This sentence has now besn confirmed on appeal. The Eepubo^ui Fray r/use intends, it ia said, to carry the case to the Court of Cassation.