THE T LRT A Weekly Newspaper and Review
D U M VO B IS G R A T U L AM U R , AN IM O S ETIAM ADDIMUS U T IN INCCEPTIS V E STR IS CON STAN TER M AN EA T IS .
From the Brief of H is Holiness to T he T a b l e t , June 4, 1870.
Voi. 47. No. 1875. L ondon, M arch 18, 1876.
P rice 5d. By Post 5^
[R eg is tered a t t h e Gen e r a l P o s t O f f ic e a s a N ew spaper
Page ,
C hronicle of th e W e e k :—
The Imperial Title.— Objections to it.— The Kingdom of England. — The Reasons for the Indian Style.— Blunder of the Opposition. —The Indian Tariff.— Return of the Prince of Wales.— The New French Ministry.— Its Political Colour.— The Ministerial Programme.— The Judgment o f the French Press. — The Public Prayers— and the Bishop of Versailles’ Address.— The Elections in the New French Chamber.— The Republicans and the Prefects.— The American Scandals.— Defeat of the Abyssynians 353
C O N T E N T S .
Page
L ea d e r s :
The French Parliamentary Situa
tion .. •• •• •• •• 357 The Irish University Bill .. . .3 5 7 The Irish Parliamentary Cam
paign •• •• •• •• 358 Sketches of the Reformation— IV . 359 The Reform of Church Music in
America— I I .................................. 301 R e v ie w s : . .
Catholic Church and Christian
State .. ......................... 362 Burning Questions .. •• • • 3°3 Short N otices :
The Hunchback Cashier Holy Indulgences .. Via Crucis
364 364 364
C o r r e s p o n d e n c e :
Page
Idle Fellowships . . .. .. 364 The Fens, Cambridgeshire .. 365 Catholic Workmen's Club at
Brentford . . . . .. . . 365 New Church at Clifden, Conne
mara .. .. . . . . 365 Appeal on Behalf of Two Orphans 365 Mount Carmel . . .. . . 365 P a r l ia m e n t a r y S ummary 366 R ome :— Letter from our own Cor
respondent . . . . . . 369 D io ce san N ews
W e s tm in s te r .. . . . . . . 370 S o u t h w a r k ........................................ 371 B everley . . . . . . . . 371
D io cesan (continued) ;
Page
Clifton.. . . .. . . . . 37X Shrewsbury . . . . . . . . 371
I r e l a n d :
Letter from our Dublin Corre
spondent . . .. . . . . 372 From an Occasional Cor
respondent . .
.> . . 372
F oreign N ew s :—
France
373
Germany .......................................374 M em oranda :—
Religious .......................................375 Educational . . . . . . . . 375 Literary . . .. . . . . 376 G en er a l N ew s . . . . .. 376
C H R O N I C L E O F T H E W E E K .
TULE. I
THE IMPERIAL
T seems to us that a great deal of unnecessary warmth has been expended on the proposed addition to the Queen’s titles. On Thursday week Mr. Disraeli told the House what that addition was to be. H e would not answer Mr. Samuelson’s question when his information would have had to be given baldly, without explanation or defence, but on the ■ second reading of the Bill he stated that the Indian title was to be “ Empress,” ar.d that the future designation of her Majesty would be “ Victoria, by the grace of God o f the “ United Kingdom o f Great Britain and Ireland Queen, “ Defender of the Faith, and Empress of India.” He took some trouble to prove that Emperor was not a superior title to King, so that the historic title of K ing or Queen of England would not be thrown into the shade by the addition. The Act o f Henry V I I I . , describing the Crown of England as an Imperial Crown, was intended to assert equality between that monarch and Charles V . The recognition of the Tsars of Russia as Emperors was accompanied by a stipulation that they were to be on an equality with other crowned heads ; the same principle was reasserted at the Congress of Vienna, and so forth. “ Empress ” was not an un-English title, because Spenser in his dedication of Ihe Faerie Queen addressed Elizabeth as “ Empress, Queen of “ England, o f Ireland, and of Virginia.” Mr. Disraeli might have added that K ing Athelstan took for himself and his successors the title o f “ Emperor of Britain.” It would have been quite as good an argument— rather better. Very much stronger reasons were urged in favour of the proposed title, and on these we will touch presently.
In the meanwhile we have something to say o b j e c t io n s about the objections, to which our remark at the head o f the last paragraph principally re
fers. Mr. Gladstone’s case was of course put with great ingenuity and eloquence. He argued that the relation of the Queen to the native Princes of India was not the same as that of the ancient Musulman Emperors, because the A c t o f 1868 transferred to her the Government o f those territories only which were in the possession of the East India Company. And, further, that whatever the technical relation between the titles of Emperor and King might be, the latter was always, when both were held by the same Sovereign, practically merged in the former. That is true, but it is because those Sovereigns themselves prefer to use the title of Emperor, whereas everybody well knows that no English Sovereign will do so as regards this country. Mr. Gladstone’s oratory rose to a higher flight as he began to dwell on “ the greatness, the unsullied greatness of the title “ borne by the Queen o f England. I use,” he said, “ the
N e w S e r i e s , V o l . XV. No. 384.
“ language o f moderation when I say that it is a title une“ quailed for its dignity and weight, unequalled for the glory “ o f its historic associations, unequalled for the promise “ which it offers to the future, among the titles o f the Sove“ reigns of Europe, among all the States and nations of “ the earth. I have a jealousy of touching that title, and I “ am not to be told that it a small matter. There is no“ thing small in a matter which touches the honour and “ dignity of the Crown o f England. They are far reach“ ing ; they extend not only over the life of that Sovereign “ who we hope will be long preserved to the nation; they “ reach far beyond that..............Y ou should consider the “ whole o f these questions which touch the Sovereign— such “ are the lessons I have learnt from my political instructors, “ and such are the lessons I try to hand down— you should “ consider all that touches the Crowu as matters o f the “ highest delicacy, of the highest importance, and part, the “ most sacred portion, of the same power which we are “ called upon to administer on behalf of the Empire. . . . “ The magnificent and noble title of the Queen of England “ — am I wrong in saying that it is unequalled as to every# “ substantial attribute ? The title of K in g o f France “ might have placed itself in competition with it. That title “ of K ing of France has been entirely swept away.............. “ What I feel about the Imperial title is that, with the “ greatest possible respect for Emperors now subsisting, and “ not at all questioning the perfect legitimacy o f the titles “ which they bear, as justified by the circumstances in which “ they stand, I am not very willing to have the title o f “ Queen of England, without very strong reasons, brought “ into competition with thesis.” A l l this is in the truly grand style, but it proceeds on the supposition that the title of Empress is likely, at least by degrees, to supersede that of Queen, and everybody knows, or ought to know, that nothing of the kind is intended, and that nothing is more improbable.
t h e k i n g d o m OF ENGLAND.
Wewonder moreover whether itever occurred to Mr. Gladstone that the old “ historic title ” of “ Queen of England” no longer exists. We have lost it since the Union with Scotland in the reign o f Queen Anne, when the term “ Great Britain ” was invented to express that Union. When the Union with Ireland was effected, either a new common term should have been invented, such as “ the British Isles,”— which Lord Macaulay would have preferred— or the ancient names of England, Scotland, and Ireland should have been restored, if an equal Union was to be expressed. Neither was done, and the consequence is that the existing formula expresses a closer union between England and Scotland than between these two countries and Ireland. We fully sympathise with Mr. Gladstone’s admiration for the historic title o f “ Queen