He communicated his opinion to M. de Lesseps, who first expressed strong repugnance to the proposal, but afterwards intimated a disposition to negotiate a sale to the Maritime Powers in general. Sir D. Lange stuck to the scheme of exclusive British management. His correspondence with Lord Granville, however, ended with a decided refusal to engage in the transaction. The letters of Sir D. Lange were private and confidential, but by inadvertence they were published in the Appendix to the Suez Canal papers issued by Mr. Disraeli's Government, and on seeing them, M. C. de Lesseps summarily dismissed him from the service of the Company, on the plea that he had entered on the correspondence, had even entered on personal negotiations with the British Government, without informing the Directors, had made incorrect statements, and compromised the name of M. Ferdinand de Lesseps without any authority.

The subject was brought up in the House of Commons on March 6, when Mr. Gladstone commented on Mr. Disraeli's answer touching the despatch of a Commissioner to superintend the application of the Egyptian Revenue, and described, in a satirical vein, the difficulties and the hopeless impotence of a Commissioner in such a position. Animadverting next on the discourteous dismissal of Sir D. Lange, he expressed his opinion that the assigned cause was only a plea which had been seized upon by M. de Lesseps as an opportunity for self-assertion. It would be a good test of the great influence we were supposed to have gained in the administration of the Canal if we procured the reinstatement of Sir D. Lange.

Mr. Disraeli protested against the imaginary project which Mr. Gladstone had attributed to the Government without any warrant, thus attempting to precipitate discussion, to the injury of the public service. As to Sir D. Lange, at present he had made no complaint, but the Government would be glad to protect his interests, as those of any other British subject. But he under

stood that a communication had been made by M. Charles de Lesseps to our Ambassador in Paris, not of a public character, which induced him to think that Mr. Gladstone had been unneces

sarily alarmed. As to the publication of the letters, he repeated that it was not by inadvertence. Two of the most important of the five were not marked "Private and Confidential," and they were necessary to give the House a complete history of our relations with the Suez Canal. Moreover, the papers, before publication, had been submitted to Lord Granville.

Mr. Cave did not make a statement in defence of his Report (although on the 12th of May, in answer to a question by Mr. Cartwright, he explained some misconceptions as to the Khedive's debts), until a late period of the session. On the 5th of August, the opportunity was offered by a request for information by Sir G. Campbell. Mr. Cave contended that by revealing the perilous condition of Egyptian finance his Report, which remained unim

peached notwithstanding the searching examination to which it had been subjected, had opened the eyes of the Khedive and of the world, and prevented a collapse which might have been more disastrous. At the time of the publication of the Report the Khedive's liabilities might have been met, and they might even yet be met. Mr. Cave gave an interesting account of the Khedive's character and habits and surroundings, illustrating the causes of the extravagant expenditure which had involved him in liabilities of such magnitude, and concluded by expressing his belief that good days were still in store for a country so important to us as the Highway to India.

The Committee on the Suez Canal Bill was not reached until the 8th of the same month. Mr. Lowe repeated once more his ingenious carpings at the scheme; and Mr. Rylands succeeded in making even Sir Stafford Northcote indignant by clumsily hinting (though he afterwards disclaimed the intention) that successful speculations had been made by those in the confidence of the Government. On the other hand, warm support to the general policy of the purchase was accorded by Mr. Reed, speaking as an independent member, Mr. Mac Iver, in the name of Liverpool merchants, Lord Elcho, and others. Public opinion out of doors, as we have already pointed out, had long ago cooled down from its first enthusiasm, and probably Mr. Lowe's hypercriticism and Mr. Rylands' infelicitous innuendoes caused a slightly favourable reaction. At any rate, the once extolled stroke of high policy was shorn of its brilliance, and no mention of the bill was thought necessary in the Royal Speech which ended the session.

It will be noticed that a paragraph in the Queen's Speech had referred to her intention to supply the omission of any addition to the style and titles of the Sovereign at the time that the direct government of India had been transferred to the Crown. The public were therefore prepared for the bill brought before the Commons by Mr. Disraeli on February 17, when he said (having repeated the statement that the proposal had been long under consideration) :

"Since the transfer of the direct Government of India to the Queen, the interest felt by the people of this country in India has greatly increased. It has become every year deeper and wider. I remember when I first entered this House, now about forty years ago, that there were, I believe, even members of Parliament who looked upon India as a vast country which, generally speaking, was inhabited by a single and by a subjugated race. But since then information has been so much diffused among all classes of our countrymen on the subject of India, that even those who have the most ordinary information are now well aware that India is an ancient country of many nations; that it is peopled by various and varying races, differing in origin, in language, in religion, in manners, and in laws--some of them highly gifted and highly civilised, and many of them of rare antiquity. And this vast commu

nity is governed, under the Queen, by many sovereign princes, some of whom occupy thrones which were filled by their ancestors when England was a Roman province. The presence of the Prince of Wales in India has naturally increased and stimulated this feeling of sympathy in both countries. It is not for me to offer compliments to a Prince so near the Throne, but in fulfilling a public duty the language of truth may be permitted; and I am sure that I am justified in saying that throughout this great enterprise on his part his demeanour and his conduct has been such that he has proved that it is not his birth only which qualifies him for an Imperial post. Under these circumstances, I have to ask the House to pass a bill which consists of only one clause, and which will enable Her Majesty, by proclamation, to make that addition to her style and titles which befits the occasion. In taking this course I am following a precedent, the validity of which, I think, cannot be impugned. At the time of the union with Ireland, in the Act of Union itself, there was a proviso enabling the Sovereign, when the Act was passed, to announce, by proclamation under the Great Seal, the style and title he would assume; and, accordingly, His Majesty King George III. issued a proclamation under the Great Seal, and adopted the title of King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its Dependencies. I trust that the House will support Her Majesty's Government in the course they are adopting, because we have reason to feel that it is a step which will give great satisfaction not merely to the Princes, but to the nations of India. They look forward to some act of this kind with interest, and by various modes they have conveyed to us their desire that such a policy should be pursued. I cannot myself doubt that it is one also that will be most agreeable to the people of England and of the United Kingdom, because they must feel that such a step gives a seal, as it were, to that sentiment which of late years has been so rising in these islands -namely a determination to maintain our empire. And it will be an answer to those mere economists and those foreign diplomatists who announce that India is to us only a burden or a danger. By passing this bill, then, and enabling Her Majesty to take this step, the House will show in a manner that is unmistakable that they look upon India as one of the most precious possessions of the Crown, and their pride that it is a part of her empire and governed by her Imperial Throne."

Mr. Lowe followed the Prime Minister in a speech which displayed all his critical and dialectical powers, and also his occasional inability to realise the feelings of his countrymen. In the first place he discussed the meaning of the word Imperial, and quoted the Acts of Henry VIII., of James I., of the Irish Union, and "Blackstone's Commentaries" in support of his contention that the Crown of England had always been an Imperial Crown. Presuming that the title to be taken was that of Empress of India, Mr. Lowe contended that there was no precedent for the assump

tion of this title by an English Sovereign, and again referred to "Blackstone" for the different interpretations of King and Emperor. The popular impression was that a King was under the law, while an Emperor made the law; and he went on, amid some laughter and murmurs, to comment on the inexpediency of giving to the Sovereign in India a different title from that which she bore in England, and on the danger of associating the Queen in the minds of the Indian people with the fierce conquerors who were Emperors of Delhi, or with the wretches who were the Roman Emperors.

Commenting on the possible difficulties involved in the assumption of a new title, Mr. Lowe said :

"There is one point in that which strikes me would be rather curious, though it would not be easy to get over it. The Queen is 'Defender of the Faith.' 'Defender of the Faith' is a title which has done much hard work in its time, from the period when Henry VIII. possessed it and supported the Roman Catholic faith, and retained it after he had suppressed that faith. Therefore, as it has borne so much, it may be considered that it can bear a little more. Suppose for a moment how the title would read. Supposing it to be the wish of Her Majesty to assume the title of Queen of India, the title would run something like this-Her Majesty, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and India, Defender of the Faith. Then the question would arise, whose faith? If we were to take the grammatical construction, it would mean the faith of India; but some people might wish to be more explicit, and add an 's,' so that it would read Defender of the Faiths."

Turning to the question of our rule in India, and boldly facing the possibility of its loss:

"Most of us remember how very near we were losing it some twenty years ago. Well, that was the impression then, at any rate. Suppose the Crimean War had lasted another year, and then that this rebellion had taken place, instead of giving us nearly a year's breathing time, might not this country have been put to a great extremity? It is quite possible at any rate. We cannot regard our position in India with the satisfaction we feel in reference to the possession of Hampshire or Sussex. I want to know what sort of feelings the Parliament of the day would have when they came to alter the style of Her Majesty and blot India out from her titles. We once believed ourselves to be the conquerors of France, and we assumed the title of conquerors of France, but the French beat us out of France, and left us only with a single small town in it. But how long was it before we made up our minds to give up the title of King of France? It was given up in 1801, many years after our last hopes had been destroyed, and 130 years since our King had condescended to accept the money doled out to him by Louis XIV. That shows the inconvenience of loading yourselves with titles which you are not sure of retaining."

Lastly, there was the case of the Colonies to be considered :— "We have founded Colonies, like Australia for instance, of

which we have every reason to be proud, without shedding a drop What will those great communities say if they find that India is selected to be placed above them all-India, which is in no respect of so much importance to this country as these colonies? As a colonist myself, I know something about them; and I should be sorry to think that our fellow-countrymen there are indifferent to the connection with England, or to the necessity of maintaining it. No doubt it would be a sufficient answer, if the right hon. gentleman could give it, to say that the Colonies were mentioned in the Royal style, and, therefore, that we have only to add India to complete it. But the Colonies never have been mentioned. To pick out India now is to put a slight on all these great communities."

Mr. Disraeli, in his reply, vigorously combated Mr. Lowe's arguments. "He is the only right hon. gentleman in the House who would have offered an argument of that kind. The right hon. gentleman is a prophet, but he is always a prophet of evil." The Prime Minister traversed each count in Mr. Lowe's indictment, denying the adverse precedents, and the supposed slight to the Colonies. Above all the measure would fulfil the expressed desires and gratify the legitimate ambition of the natives of India.

Before the debate on the second reading, the Premier, in answer to Mr. Bright (who inquired the character of the proposed title), pointed out that to state beforehand what title the Queen would take would be binding her down, and not enabling her to exercise her prerogative.

The second reading of the bill was moved by Mr. Disraeli on March 9. In the interval the public mind had become more and more averse to the measure proposed, and this partly because of the mystery in which Mr. Disraeli had been pleased to envelop the matter. Mr. Samuelson on the 7th had asked Mr. Disraeli "whether he was now prepared to state what was the addition to the Royal Titles which Her Majesty's Ministers will advise in the event of the passing of the Royal Titles Bill:" a question to which Mr. Disraeli having replied that he was not prepared to make the desired statement, Mr. Samuelson gave notice that on the second reading of the bill he would move that the House should not be asked to read the bill a second time "until the addition proposed to be made to the Royal Titles shall have been stated by Her Majesty's Ministers, and until full opportunity shall have been given for the consideration of such addition."

In the debate on the second reading, Mr. Disraeli made the expected "communication " as to the title selected by the Queen. As had been anticipated, it was "Empress of India." Mr. Disraeli once more combated the arguments as to the supposed slur on the Colonies, and the ancient associations of conquest with the title, and with the declaration that native opinion in India favoured its adoption, he besought the House to throw aside prejudice, and pass the second reading without a division.