think these other great communities will say if they find India selected to be placed above them? . . . The Colonies are no parts of the United Kingdom, nor are they, properly speaking, Dependencies. On the 9th of March, 1876, Mr. Gladstone criticised the proposal in these words: It is a subject which requires much consideration whether we can wisely introduce reference to India in the title of Sovereign while we at the same time take no notice of the Colonies. . . . As to the inclusion of the Colonies in the title of the Sovereign, and in the name of the United Kingdom, so far as the title of Sovereign is concerned, I really am not aware of it. I think it a very serious matter indeed if, when we have had no opportunity of consulting the Colonies, we should give Government a discretion to advise the Crown upon the enumeration of countries in the title of the Sovereign. . . . I do not hesitate to say that I, for one, am not prepared to be a party to the exclusion of the Colonies from the scope of this Bill. On the other hand, those who proposed the addition to the Sovereign's title of 'Empress of India,' did so for reasons precisely similar to those which now exist for a similar extension of the title to include the Colonies. Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli, on introducing the Bill, spoke of the ignorance and neglect of Indian affairs that had once prevailed but had by then passed away; of the satisfaction such a step would give to the people of India; and he concluded by saying: It will be agreeable to the people of the United Kingdom, because they must feel that such a step gives a seal, as it were, to that sentiment which has long existed, and the strength of which has been increased by time, and that it is the unanimous determination of the people of this country to retain our connection with the Indian Empire. III. PRECEDENTS. In regard to precedents, when Spenser dedicated his Faery Queen to Queen Elizabeth, he gave her the title of Empress Queen of England, of Ireland, and of Virginia. Since those days official notice had to be taken of the union of the two Crowns of England and Scotland. Meanwhile the Sovereign of England also claimed to be Sovereign of France. Then followed the Union with Ireland, and in the Act of Union provision is made for the Sovereign to drop the then meaningless title of King of France,' and adopt the new title of King' of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.' Since then, when the proclamation was made of the assumption by the Sovereign of direct rule over India the proclamation was made by the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the Colonies and Dependencies thereof in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, and Australasia.' The following have been the fifteen actual alterations made in the Royal Style and Titles: No. YEAR SOVEREIGN STYLE 12345 678 Englelandes King. Rex Anglorum. 9 1429 10 1544 Henry V. Henry VI. Rex Anglorum Dux Normannorum. Rex Angliæ Dux Normanniæ et Aquitaniæ. Rex Angliæ, Dominus Hiberniæ, Dux Normanniæ et Rex Angliæ, Dominus Hiberniæ, Dux Aquitaniæ. Rex Angliæ et Francia, et Dominus Hiberniæ. Queen of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, De- Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith. Brittaniarum Rex, Fidei Defensor and of the United Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, IV. USE OF AMENDING. The late Lord Iddesleigh, when, as Sir Stafford Northcote, he supported the Empress of India' Bill, pointed out that the Government was merely following precedents set in former cases when there have been changes in the constitution and limits of the Empire.' Changes in style and titles of the Sovereign, as was then pointed out, do not alter the powers of the Sovereign, but merely describe the area over which those powers hold good. Lord Beaconsfield said, in 1876, 'The amplification of the titles of the Sovereign is no new idea .. it is founded upon a great respect for local influences, for the memories of distinguished deeds, and passages of interest in the history of countries. It is often only by the amplification of titles that you can touch and satisfy the sentiment of nations.' Proof of this has been afforded by the fact that the title 'Empress of India' has never interfered in the smallest degree with the Queen's constitutional or popular position in these islands or the Colonies, whereas it has placed the seal of recognised authority on all acts of sovereignty in the Indian Empire. The practical desirability of such an alteration I pointed out by one example in my address before the Royal Colonial Institute in December 1884. I then said, in reference to Imperial commercial relations,The first step is to secure for all British exports "most favoured nation" treatment in as many markets as possible. It is a step which is not only immediately practicable, but of the highest importance. The spread of this principle is a new bond of inter national friendship, to which we may confidently look to break down many of the hitherto existing barriers to free intercourse. Twenty years ago England enjoyed this advantage with only seven of sixteen European States. Now she enjoys it with fourteen, as well as with most of the other large States of the world. And we can trace in the wording of the treaties securing this advantage a gradual acknowledgment of the necessity of including therein our Colonies. In such early treaties as that made with the United States in the year 1815, the advantage is obtained for "the Territories of his Britannic Majesty in Europe." Afterwards a more general term comes into use conferring the benefit on "goods, the produce of the two High Contracting Parties;" a third phrase has since been adopted, viz. "the dominions and provinces of Her Britannic Majesty;" and in the Austrian Treaty, made in the year 1868, the words used are "territories and possessions, including the Colonies and Foreign Possessions." To this right standard all other treaties should be raised; and I mention all this in detail because it is a fair sample of something which might be set about, as I say, to-morrow, and which is necessary in the interests of the Empire. These treaties are made in the name of Her Majesty, and that is why it seems so important to make the royal title specifically to include all the provinces of the nation.' Thus in making treaties and generally in dealing with foreign Powers it is indispensable that the Sovereign Power of the nation be completely defined. V. WORDING OF THE AMENDMENT. The practical alteration required in the Royal Style should (i.) define with sufficient fullness and accuracy the present area over which the national sovereignty extends: (ii.) be sufficiently elastic to cover any fresh growths of the Colonial Empire, so as to avoid the necessity for further alteration; (iii.) be short and concise for practical use. The actual wording of the addition is an important detail. In the Empress of India' debate in the House of Commons in 1876, Mr. Anderson suggested that the Royal Title should run: Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Canada, Australia, India, and South Africa.' Others have made similar suggestions. But if one colony or dependency is mentioned, all must be; and even if continents or quarters of the world were proposed, as in the Indian Proclamation, still there would be colonies and dependencies on distant islands not included. Moreover, the names must appear in some order, and that raises the vexed question of precedence; and above all the enumeration would be lengthy and cannot be concise. The title I would suggest to meet the three conditions, given above, would be: 'Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of all the Dominions and Territories of the British Nation, Queen, Defender of the Faith, Empress of India.' Such a title includes, without naming, all the colonies and the dependencies as well, and leaves the royal signature—' Victoria Regina Imperatrix '— supreme as of old, but more significant because indicating the fixed unity and unanimity of the whole British Empire. VI. IN CONCLUSION. The method of procedure would, of course, be the introduction by the Government of a Bill to enable Her Majesty to make an addition to the Royal Style and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Colonies and Dependencies.' It is earnestly to be hoped that it will be the pleasure of Her Majesty to accept such a trust, and by this means indelibly to stamp on the history of the nation the greatest of the incidents of that history, viz. the growth of the Colonial Empire in the Victorian age. GEORGE BADEN-POWELL. The Editor of THE NINETEENTH CENTURY cannot undertake THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. No. CXXIV.-JUNE 1887. THE JUBILEE. 1887. I. EIGIIT hundred years and twenty-one Have shone and sunken since the land Beheld her fettered hand. II. But ere dark time had shed as rain Or sown on sterile earth as seed That bears no fruit save tare and weed An age and half an age again, She rose on Runnymede. III. Out of the shadow, starlike still, She rose up radiant in her right, And spake, and put to fear and flight That pleads no right save might. VOL. XXI. No. 124. 3 G |