=Source.=--_Hansard_, Third Series, vol. 227, col. 1,736 (Debate on
Royal Titles Bill, March 9, 1876).
MR. GLADSTONE: ... In my opinion this is a matter of the greatest
importance. We have had some declarations in this House with
respect to India. The hon. member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy
Wyndham), on the night when the right hon. gentleman first made
his proposal, said that an Imperial title would be the one most
suitable, because it would signify that Her Majesty governed India
without the restraints of law or constitution.
MR. PERCY WYNDHAM: I said that the Government of India was a
despotic Government, not in the hands of one person, and not,
as in this country, a constitutional Government in the hands of
the Queen and the Houses of Lords and Commons. The Government of
India is essentially a despotic Government as administered by us,
although it includes more than one individual.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am very much obliged, and I perceive completely
the hon. member's meaning; but I am sorry that to that meaning,
as it stands, I take the greatest objection. If it be true--and
it is true--that we govern India without the restraints of law,
except such law as we make ourselves; if it be true that we have
not been able to give to India the benefit and blessings of free
institutions, I leave it to the hon. gentleman--I leave it to the
right hon. gentleman if he thinks fit--to boast that he is about
to place that fact solemnly upon record. By the assumption of the
title of Empress, I for one will not attempt to turn into glory
that which, so far as it is true, I feel to be our weakness and
our calamity.... It is plain that the government of India--that
is, the entire India--never has yet, by statute, been vested in
Her Majesty; but that which has been vested is the government of
the countries which were held in trust for Her Majesty by the East
India Company. I would be the last man to raise this question
if it were a mere verbal quibble. It is as far as possible from
being a question merely verbal.... 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, the possible consequences of which no man
can foresee; and when the right hon. gentleman tells us the Princes
desire this change to be made, does he really mean to assure us
that this is the case? If so, I require distinct evidence of the
fact. There are Princes in India who, no doubt, have hitherto
enjoyed no more than a theoretical political supremacy, but do
they desire to surrender even that under the provisions of this
Bill? The right hon. gentleman is going to advise the Queen to
become Empress of India. I raise the question, What is India? I
have said that the dominion now vested in Her Majesty is limited
to the territories vested in the East India Company. I ask whether
the supremacy of certain important Native States in India ever was
vested in the Company, or whether it was not? We are bound to ask
the right hon. gentleman--and I think he is bound to answer the
question through the medium of his best legal authorities--whether
this supremacy is so vested or not, and whether he can assure us
upon his responsibility that no political change in the condition
of the Native Princes of India will be effected by this Bill.
If there is a political change effected, I do not hesitate to
say I do not think it would be possible to offer too determined
an opposition to the proposal of the Government.... I feel with
the right hon. gentleman--indeed, I feel a little more than the
right hon. gentleman--the greatness, the unsullied greatness, of
the title which is now borne by the Queen of England. I think
I use the language of moderation when I say that it is a title
unequalled for its dignity and weight, unequalled for the glory
of its historic associations, unequalled for the promise which it
offers to the future, among the titles of the Sovereigns of Europe,
among all the states and nations on earth. Sir, I have a jealousy
of touching that title, and I am not to be told that this is a
small matter. There is nothing small in a matter, in my judgment,
which touches the honour and dignity of the Crown of England....
The right hon. gentleman has indeed manfully contended that there
is no inferiority in the title of King as compared with that of
Emperor.... I want to know why I am to be dragged into novelties,
or into comparisons on a subject of this sort?... There is one
other point on which I am anxious to make a few comments. I was, I
own, struck by what fell from my right hon. friend the member for
the University of London (Mr. Lowe) the other evening in reference
to the colonies. Whether it be desirable to make any recital with
regard to the colonies or not, it is a subject which requires much
consideration whether we can wisely introduce reference to India
in the title of the Sovereign, while we at the same time take no
notice of the colonies.