The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-04-08 00:00:00

THE ROYAL TITLES BILL.

"A Loy al Subject" writes to The Times (on
Monday) :
Slr,—There is no doubt that the Queen gave her willing
consent to the Royal Titles Bill. No complaint has ever
been made of Her Majesty's caring more than is right for the
pomp and attributes of her great position. But in com-
municating with those who were favourable to the project,
it was not unreasonable that the Queen should think the
measure wise and opportune.
If Her Majesty's Government have, subsequently to the
introduction of the Bill, advised the Queen, in accordance
with their public statements, that the opposition to it is of
a Party character, that public opinion is not against it, and
that it is rather popular than otherwise, nothing can be
more natural than that Her Majesty should retain her first
opinion. But the responsibility of the Ministers is great. •
Have they not a further responsibility ? The Prince of
Wales is returning from a successful progress through the
country which is to afford the new title. Be is returning to
a kingdom over which he-and his son will in the course of
nature be called upon to reign.
It was a legitimate question to ask in Parliament whether
the Government had consulted the Viceroy of India and the
Indian Council. It was, perhaps, legitimate to decline to
answer that question; but the inference was clear. It would
be indiscreet to ask in Parliament whether Her Majesty's
Ministers had communicated with the Prince of Wales. But ;
if they have not done so, wonld it! ot be 'a .furtll4 proof of
the want of consideration that has been given to Os Bill and
the conduct of it through Parliament?
On ordinary political matters it would only place the
Prince of Wales in a false position for Ministers to consult
him His Royal Highness has with great tact, and with the
instinct on Constitutional subjects which he has inherited
from his illustrious mother, avoided publicly taking a share
in politics. But this is a question which touches the-Prince as
nearly as, it not more than, any other person.
Can any,rneinnor of the Government, or any other person,
say that ne knows his Royal Highness la in favour of the Bill?
If he is not, 83 I believe, can it be right to push on this Bill,
for which no urgency can De pleaded?

"A Queen's Chaplain" wr;tes to The Times :—" In the
course of the discussion on the Royal Titles Bill, I have not
observed that attention has ben called to the fact that
your suggestion of the adoption 31 the title Sovereign
Lady' commends itself—at least to members of the National
Church—by its u.e at Morning and Evening Prayer in the
'Prayer for the Queen's Majesty'—' Moat heartily we beseesih
Thee with Thy favour to behold our Most Gracious Sovereign
Lady Queen Victoria ' If, therefore, that title should be
selected (as I hope it may be) to designate her Majesty's
paramount authority in India, it would neither be unfamiliar
nor inapplicable when used at home : and Indians might feel
that, though regarded as specially suited to define her
Majesty's supremacy in India, it is one which has been
consecrated in England by long usage in the nation's daily
prayers."

Mr. James Burke (Dublin) writes tb The Tinles :—"On
British silver coins of 1740 the inscription was BRITT. BID.
FRAN. IND. RRX ; but on none does IMP. appear. A skilled
'numismatist might tell us when and why IND. was dropped.
its restoration now in proclamations and on cabs would
answer all purposes of any importance." ,

"True Briton" writes to the Daily Telegraph :—I sugzest
the new title might be "Victoria, by the grace of God, ctc..,
Queen of the United Empires of Great Britain and Indi...;"
ur, say "the Empires of Great 13ritAin and India, United."
Great Britain is a grand and comprehensive exprersion, and
would comprise the United Kingdom and the colonies: but
"Great Britain and Ireland" limits the expression, and
necessitates Australia, &c.—otherwise the colonies would
be excluded.

The Solicitors' Journal asks :—" Is India to have a
Great Seal of her own, as Ireland has under section 3
of the Act of Union? It not, since the patents to the offices
of Chief Justice and Plume Judge in India pass under the
Great Seal, It would seem that when the Royal style is al-
tered the Great seal will have to be renewed. Four centuries
and a half ago this was done, and the reason alleged for the
change was somewhat similar to that put forward by Mr.
Disraeli on the third reading of the Royal Titles Bill. In
1422 it was enacted that, 'forasmuch as the inheritance of
the kingdoms and Crown of France, England, and Ireland
are now lawfully descended to the King, which title
is not expressed in the King's seals, whereby great
peril might accrue to the King• there_
fore in all the King's seals . . . this new style
shall be engraved, " lienricus Del gratis Rex Francite et
Anglite et Dominus Hibernia)." (Prynne, 'Opening ot Great
Seal,' p. 19.) The occasions, other than the accession of a
Sovereign, on which the Great Seal has been rene wed are rare.
We need hardly remind our readers that in 1616 a new Great
Seal was substituted for the Great Seal of Charies L, which was
broken and defaced ; that in 1660 the new Seal of the Common-
wealth was itself solemnly broken and defaced : and that in
1683 James 11. threw the Great Seal into the Thames. By the
Act of Union with Scotland (6 Anne, cap 8), it was enacted that
after the union there should be one Great Seal for the king-
dom of Great Britain, which should be different from the
Great Seals then used in either kingdom In 1784 the Great
Seal was stolen and a new one was made in its place. Of
course the Seal is renewed on the accession of a new Sove-
reign, and the proceeding then adopted is to issue an Order
in Council authorizing the preparation of a new Great Seal,
and when the Seal is completed another order is made
for using it. The old Great
blow
wisth a henhiadmammaesrk,
up
ewdh'erbeytohne
Sovereign giving it a gentle wit
it becomes the perquisite of the Lord Chancellor for the time
being. On a recent occasion when the Great Seal was
damasked a curious contest arose for its possession be-
tween Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham, recorded in
Campbell's 'Lives of the Chancellors' (vol.. 1, p 27). The
first-named peer was Chancellor when the order for a new
Great Seal was made, the latter when the order for using it
was made, and each claimed the old sell. The King, on being
appealed to, directed that each should have one of the two
portions of which the seat consisted. If Lord Ciirrts ahould
obtain the present Great Seal, he may probably be congratu.
llted as being the person most substantially benefited by the I
change in the Royal style."

Several meeting have been held to oppose the
Royal Titles Bill. At Liverpool on Saturday after-
noon a large Liberal meeting was held at the Law
Rooms, Mr. T. D. Hornby in the chair, at which the
following motion, moved by Mr. Robert Gladstone,
was carried ui.animously :—" Tow, this meeting
earneitly deprecates the proposed addition of the de-
signation 'Empress of India "to the ancient.; sty or
title of the Sovereign of these realms 'as reptignant
to the national sentiment and not in accordance
with the history of the nation and the loyalty of
the people." A meeting of working men was held in
front of St. George's-hall in the evening.—On Friday,
at a meeting of the Town Council of Edinburgh, it was
resolved, by 27 to 5, to approve the minutes of a previous
meeting, at which it was agreed to petition Parliament
against the Bill. The Edinburgh oConfa,-..^^•:'
• Men's Aaflnoioti,a v mmot petition to the
favour of the Bill.
ioj

• THE. PLAGUE.
(From The Times, Friday, March 31.) . .
We are informed that the plague, which for the last
two years has appeared now and again in the villages
on the lower Euphrates, has now broken out at Hillah,
and that some cases have occurred at Bagdad. The
disease has been absent from this country for more
than 150 years, and from the continent of Europe, arid '
from its once favourite haunts in Egypt, Syria, and.
Mesopotamia, for about 40 years. The recent out-
breaks, however, have shown no diminution of the old
virulence, and there can he little doubt, when the.pre-
sent state of commercial c, mmunication is considered,
that the malady will soon be conveyed from Bagdad to
the Levant. From the Levant it might easily pass
to Europe and even to our own shores. Fortunately,
the unhealthy conditions of living by which plague
was once fostered among ourselves no longer exist ; and
' partly from the changes in this respect, partly by '
reason of the powers now vested in local sanitary
authorities, there is every, reason to believe that any
importation ofthe disease into this country would be
speedily controlled and ' kept within narrow limits.
There can be no doubt, however, that jt is ,the duty
of sanitary authOrities, especially in seaport towns,
to be fully prepared for any emergency which may
arise, and to cunsider beforehand the precautions
which would be required if any case of plague should .
be brought within their jurisdiction. ~, • , , ,
I
ThiTimes, of Monday, has the following leader On
the s bject of the plague :
A pi ce of intelligence which we published last week would
twecelituries ago have excited a greater semation than the
oulbre k of a most formidable war or even than the nerve of
' Kcins ug tivfe4. TO,Plague, it teems clear, heonce more
threU Orb.' the d'ontines of Ennwp. The °progress. of the .
pestib, ce'itist Year in the valley
,qf the 14ower.klaphiates
arouse some, alarm, but hives were entertained, that the
epiden 'c was no more than the feeble flicker of a flame
lung bhrnt low, and, according to the general belief,
now finally extinguished. The contagion, however, some
weeks isgo began again to spread in Mesopotamia,, and
since the beginning of March At has reached liagdad
The Z:ity of Caliph Haionn -Alrischld was in former
dcyz painfully familLir with the Pla2ue, from which a visite-.
tic:, wai expec,ad at least once hi ten years. The epidemic
of 1831 is still remembered with terrcr in Bagdad, for in that
fatal year the disease carried off as many as 4,000 victims
daily lot' several days in succession, and during the month of
April is computed to have destsoyed 80,000 people, out of
a 'population of 150,000. But for a whole generation the
pestilence has been almost unknown even in Egypt,