The next subject discussed in Parliament, as it was also being discussed throughout British countries generally, was that of the Royal titles. As they stood when the King ascended the throne the only countries of the Empire recognized were Great Britain, Ireland and India. It was pointed out that Queen Mary in the days of Spanish marriage relations and power possessed, with King Philip, titles which included England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, Ireland, Spain, Sicily, Austria, Milan &; that Emperor Francis Joseph was not only Emperor of Austria but King of Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Sclavonia, Gallicia, Illyria and Jerusalem; that the three principal countries of the Empire were now strong enough and prominent enough to be properly and permanently represented in this way; that it would enhance the dignity of Great Britain while placing Canada and Australia in a more equal and national position within the Empire; that some such recognition had been supported in 1876 by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli in the House of Commons; and that it had been proposed by the Colonial Conference of 1887.
ADDITION TO THE KING'S TITLES
Within a short time of the King's accession—on January 29th—a dispatch was sent by Mr. Chamberlain to the Governors-General of Canada and Australia saying that the moment was opportune to consider the matter of the Monarch's titles, so as to recognize the "separate and greatly increased importance of the Colonies" and suggesting, personally, the phrase: "King of Great Britain and Ireland and of Greater Britain beyond the Seas." Mr. Chamberlain also expressed the belief that there were considerable difficulties in the way of such designations as King of Canada and King of Australia, owing to the smaller Colonies which would desire to be also specially mentioned. Lord Minto, in his reply, expressed his Government's doubt as to the use of the word "Greater Britain," their preference for the title "King of Canada" and their willingness, in case of jealousies elsewhere, to propose that of "Sovereign of all British Dominions beyond the Seas." Lord Hopetoun stated that his Government preferred the designation of "Sovereign Lord of the British Realms beyond the Seas." The Colonial Secretary then communicated with Cape Colony, Newfoundland and New Zealand where the Governments all favoured some general designation.
On July 27th, Lord Salisbury introduced a measure in the House of Lords authorizing the Sovereign "to make such addition to the style and title at present appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom and its Dependencies as to His Majesty may seem fit." Speaking unofficially, the Premier intimated that the Royal title would probably be "Edward VII., by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of all the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." During a short discussion in the House, two days later, Lord Rosebery suggested the title of "King of all the Britains" Lord Salisbury did not consider this admissible, however, and the measure passed its second reason without opposition. Eventually the bill became law and was the subject of general approval at home and in the Colonies. The title was then officially proclaimed in the terms mentioned by Lord Salisbury. Speaking of this action, Sir Horace Tozer of Queensland told the Daily News of July 31st that the Commonwealth Act declared the desire of the Australian people, in its first words, to unite in one indissoluble Commonwealth "under the Crown" and he expressed the opinion that this action would "ratify and give expression" to that deliberate decision.
On May 10th, a Dublin newspaper called The Irish People published an article about the King which was not only seditious in language but abominable in its allegations and statements—they could hardly be dignified with the name of charges. The paper was at once seized, and on the following day the Irish members precipitated a debate in Parliament upon the action thus taken. Mr. John Dillon pointed out that this paper was the recognized organ of the Nationalist movement, claimed that the action of the Government was grossly illegal, and declared that it was a blow struck at the freedom of the press. Mr. W. Redmond took much the same ground. Mr. George Wyndham, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, spoke of the article as containing "outrageous, scurrilous, gross and coarse remarks," and as using language more foul than that of certain foreign papers which had been so complained of during the year. He had ordered it to be seized because it was guilty of "seditious libel," because it was his duty to prevent such a nuisance from being inflicted upon the public, and because similar action had been taken in the past year upon an article attacking the late Queen Victoria. Mr. John Redmond declared that the action was taken too late, anyway, and that plenty of copies had gone through the mail to America and the Continent. Mr. Balfour supported Mr. Wyndham and asked, if "obscene libel" and "a foul and poisoned weapon" were necessary aids to Irish agitation. He pointed out that the Sovereign was incapable of replying to this sort of statement, and declared that the publication was "a gross offense against public decency and public law and loyalty." Mr. H. H. Asquith, on behalf of the Opposition, took the ground that those concerned could appeal to the Courts, if injured, and that he could not but accept the Government's description of the article and support them in their action. Messrs. Bryn-Roberts, Labouchere and John Burns criticised the Government, and the vote stood two hundred and fifty-two to sixty-four in approval of their action.
The debate in the Imperial Parliament was, however, not the end of the matter. A newspaper in Melbourne, Australia, called The Tocsin, republished the article in question, and its proprietor, Mr. E. Findley, M.L.A., was at once expelled from the Victorian Legislature. The discussion and vote took place on June 25th, when Mr. Findley disclaimed responsibility as being publisher and not Editor, but defended the newspaper's statement that suppression of the Dublin paper was an illegal act. He expressed regret, however, that the article had appeared in his journal, in view of its having given offence to the House. The Premier of Victoria, Mr. A. J. Peacock, at once declared that no apology was sufficient unless it included unqualified disavowal and disapproval of the article in question, and moved the following Resolution: "That the Honourable member for Melbourne, Mr. Edward Findley, being the printer and publisher of a newspaper known as The Tocsin, in the issue of which, on the 20th instant, there is published a seditious libel regarding His Majesty the King, is guilty of disloyalty to His Majesty and has committed an act discreditable to the honour of Parliament, and that he, therefore, be expelled from this House."
Mr. Irvine, Leader of the Opposition, endorsed the action of the Government, and declared that the republication—even to the appearance of a second edition of the paper—was a deliberate attempt to give currency to this "foul and scandalous libel" as being a fact. Many others spoke, and Mr. Findley in another speech said he had no sympathy whatever with the article, and was extremely sorry that it had appeared. Orders had come from outside for thousands of copies of the paper and had not been filled. The House, however, was determined to take action, and he was expelled by a vote of sixty-four to seventeen. Mr. Findley ran again as a Labour candidate in East Melbourne and was opposed by Mr. J. F. Deegan—a man of no particular politics, but known for his loyalty, and supported on the platform by both party Leaders. The latter candidate was elected by a substantial majority. A very few other Australian papers had, meanwhile, republished the article, and perhaps half a dozen Canadian ones.
The first Parliament of the reign closed on August 17th shortly after the King had suffered the loss of his distinguished sister, the Empress Frederick. With this event, which occurred on August 8th, there passed away what the Times well termed "a life of brilliant promise, of splendid hopes, of exalted ideals"—overruled with relentless rigour by a hard fate which brought her liberal principles into conflict with the iron will of Bismarck, nullified her capacity by the opposition of the Court of Berlin, and removed her husband by death at the very moment when the opportunity of power and position seemed to have come. The King, accompanied by Queen Alexandra and Princess Victoria, at once left for Frederickshof. They were received at Homburg by the Emperor William and conducted to the Castle. The funeral took place amid scenes of stately solemnity on August 13th and the Emperor and the King were present as chief mourners. While the obsequies were proceeding memorial services were held in England at the Chapel Royal, St. James's, in St. Giles's Cathedral, Edinburgh and in various other churches throughout the country.
PUBLIC INCIDENTS AND FUNCTIONS
Meanwhile, various incidents illustrative of the King's tact and influence upon public affairs had occurred. His well-known interest in American affairs was shown on June 1st by an official reception given at Windsor Castle to the members of the New York Chamber of Commerce who were visiting England as guests of the London Chamber of Commerce. Accompanied by Lord Brassey and the Earl of Kintore, some twenty-five gentlemen were presented to His Majesty and Queen Alexandra. They included General Horace Porter, Mr. Morris K. Jessup, the Hon. Levi P. Morton, the Hon. Cornelius N. Bliss and Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan. Some of the American expressions of opinion upon this not unusual courtesy to distinguished foreigners were extremely amusing. Others, such as that of the N. Y. Tribune were dignified and appreciative. Immediately upon hearing of the attempt on President McKinley's life on September 6th, the King sent a despatch of deepest sympathy and instructed the Foreign Office to keep him informed as to the President's condition. He was at the time spending a week with the King of Denmark at Copenhagen and to that place the bulletins were duly cabled from Washington.