The Crown and the Empire

The great development of a political nature in the British Empire of the nineteenth century was the complete harmony which gradually evolved between the Monarchy and a world-wide democracy. This process was all-important because it eliminated an element of internal discord which has destroyed more than one nation in the past; because it permitted the peaceful progress of scattered states to continue through the passing years without having questions of allegiance to seriously hamper their growth; because it trained political thought along lines of stability and continuity and made loyalty and liberty consistent and almost synonymous terms; because it made the Crown the central symbol of the Empire's unity, the visible object of a world-wide allegiance, the special token of a common aspiration and a common sentiment amongst many millions of English-speaking people—the subject of untutored reverence and unquestioned respect amongst hundreds of millions of other races.

THE POSITION OF THE CROWN

The chief factor in this development was the late Queen Victoria, and to the inheritance of the fabric thus evolved came a son who was educated amid the constitutional environment in which she lived and was trained in the Imperial ideas which she so strongly held and so wisely impressed upon her statesmen, her family and her people. King Edward came into responsibilities which were greater and more imposing than those ever before inherited by a reigning sovereign. He had not only the great example and life of his predecessor as a model and as a comparison; not only the same vast and ever-changing and expanding Empire to rule over; not only a similar myriad-eyed press and public to watch his every expression and movement; but he entered with his people upon a new century in which one of the first and most prominent features is a decay in popular respect for Parliament and a revival of the old-time love for stately display, for ceremonial and for the appropriate trappings of royalty. With this evident and growing influence of the Crown as a social and popular factor is the knowledge which all statesmen and constitutional students now possess of the personal influence in diplomacy and statecraft which was wielded by the late Queen Victoria and which the experience and tact of the new Monarch enabled him to also test and prove. Side by side with these two elements in the situation was the conviction which has now become fixed throughout the Empire that the Crown is the pivot upon which its unity and future co-operation naturally and properly turns; that the Sovereign is the one possible central figure of allegiance for all its scattered countries and world-wide races; that without the Crown as the symbol of union and the King as the living object of allegiance and personal sentiment the British realms would be a series of separated units.

These facts lend additional importance to the character and history of the Monarchy; to the influences which have controlled the life and labours of King Edward; to the abilities which have marked his career and the elements which have entered into the making of his character. He may not in succeeding years of his reign have declared war like an Edward I., or made secret diplomatic arrangements like a Charles II. He may not have manipulated foreign combinations like a William III., or dismissed his Ministers at pleasure like a George III., or worked one faction in his Kingdom against another like a Charles I. None of these things have been attempted, nor will his successor desire to undertake them. But none the less there lay in his hand a vast and growing power—the personal influence wielded by a popular and experienced Monarch over his Ministry, his Court, his Diplomatic Staff throughout the world, and his high officers in the Army and Navy. The prestige of his personal honours or personal wishes and the known Imperialism of his personal opinions must have had great weight in controlling Colonial policy in London; while his experience of European and Eastern statecraft through many years of close intercourse with foreign and home statesmen undoubtedly had a marvelous effect in the control of British policy abroad.

To the external Empire, as constituted at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Crown is a many-sided factor. The personal and diplomatic influence of the Sovereign is obvious and was illustrated by Queen Victoria in such historic incidents as the personal relations with King Louis Philippe which probably averted a war with France in the early forties; in the later friendship with Louis Napoleon which helped to make the Crimean War alliance possible; in the refusal by the Queen to assent to a certain casus belli despatch during the American War which saved Great Britain from being drawn into the struggle; in her influence upon the Cabinet in connection with the Schleswig-Holstein question, which was exerted to such an extent (according to Lord Malmesbury) as to have averted a possible conflict with Germany.

The political power of the Crown and its wearer is proven to exist in the dismissal of Lord Palmerston for his rash recognition of the French coup d'État; in the occasional exercise of the right of excluding certain individuals from the Government—notably the case of Mr. Labouchere a decade ago; in such direct exercise of influence as the Queen's intervention in the matter of the Irish Church Disestablishment Bill as related by the late Archbishop Tait. The Imperial influence of the Sovereign has been shown in more than merely indirect ways. The Queen's refusal to approve the first draft of the Royal Proclamation for India in 1858 and her changes in the text were declared by Lord Canning to have averted another insurrection. Her personal determination to send the Prince of Wales to Canada in 1860 and her own visit to Ireland in one of the last years of her reign were cases of actual initiative and active policy. South Africa owed to the late Queen the several visits of the Duke of Edinburgh and the exhibition of her well-known sympathy with the views of Sir George Grey—who, had he been allowed a free hand, would have consolidated and united those regions many years ago and averted the recent disastrous struggle.

Australia owed to her the compliment of various visits from members of the Royal family, the kindly personal treatment of its leaders and a frequently expressed desire for its unity in one great and growing nationality—British in allegiance and connection and power; Australian in local authority, patriotism and development. India was indebted to its Queen-Empress for continued sympathy and wise advice to its Governors-General; for the phraseology in the Proclamation after the Mutiny, already referred to, which rendered the new conditions of allegiance comprehensible and satisfactory to the native mind; for the important visit of the Prince of Wales to that country in 1877; and for the support given to Lord Beaconfield's Imperial policy of asserting England's place in the world, of purchasing the Suez Canal shares in order to help in keeping the route to the East and of paving the way for that acquisition of Egypt and the Soudan which has since made Cecil Rhodes' dream of a great British-African empire a realizable probability. The Colonies, as a whole, owed to Queen Victoria a condition of government which made peaceful constitutional development possible; which extinguished discontent and the elements or embers of republicanism; which gradually eliminated the separative tendencies of distance and slowly merged the Manchester school ideas of the past into the Imperialism of the present; which made evolution rather than revolution the guiding principle of British countries in the nineteenth century.

THE MONARCHY IN HISTORY

How has the Crown become such an important factor in the modern development of British peoples? The answer is not found altogether in personal considerations nor even in those of loyalty to somewhat vague and undefined principles of government. These considerations have had great weight but so also has the traditional and actual power of the Monarchy in moulding institutions and ideas during a thousand years of history. To a much greater extent than is generally understood in these democratic days has this latter influence been a factor. Through nearly all British history the Sovereign has either represented the popular instincts of the time or else led in the direction of extended territory and power under the individual influence of royal valour or statecraft. The history of England has not, of course, been confined to the biography of its Kings or Queens, but it would be as absurd to trace those annals without extended study of the rulers and their characters as it would be to write the records without reference to the people and popular progress. And the Monarchy has done much for the British Isles. Its influence has effected their whole national life in war and in peace, in religion and in morals, in literature and in art. The individual achievements and actions of some of these rulers constitute the very foundation stones in the structure of modern British power. Others again have helped to build the walls of the national edifice until the Sovereign at the beginning of the twentieth century has become the pivot upon which turns the constitutional unity of a great Empire and which forms the only possible centre for a common allegiance amongst its varied peoples.

At first this monarchical principle was embodied in the form of military power, was based upon feudal loyalty, and was associated with the noble ideals, but somewhat reckless practices, of mediÆval chivalry. The victories of Egbert and Alfred the Great transformed the Heptarchy into a substantial English Kingdom. The military skill of William the Conqueror gave an opportunity to blend the graces of Norman chivalry, and a somewhat higher form of civilization, with the rougher virtues of the Saxon character. Henry II. personally illustrated this combination, with his ruddy English face and strong physical powers, and impressed himself upon British history by the conquest of Ireland. Richard Coeur de Lion gave his country many famous pages of crusading in the East, and embodied in his life and character the adventurous and daring spirit of the age. Edward I. dominated events by his energy and ability, subdued Wales, and for a time conquered the Kingdom of Scotland. Edward III., in his long reign of fifty years, carried the British flag over the fields of France, and won immortality at the battles of Crecy and Poictiers. Henry V. gained the victory of Agincourt, and won and wore the title of King of France. Then came the Wars of the Roses and the turbulent termination to a period of six centuries during which the English Monarchs had represented the military spirit of their times, and had led in the rough process of struggle and conquest out of which was growing the United Kingdom of to-day.

With the reign of Henry VIII. commenced the period of religious change—the struggles for religious liberty against ecclesiastical dominance. Limited as were the achievements of Henry and Elizabeth, in this respect, by prevailing bigotry and narrowness of view as well as by diverse personal characteristics, they none the less did great service to the country and the people. The rule of Cromwell—who, in the exercise of Royal power and the possession of regal personal ability, may properly be included in such a connection—gave that liberty of worship to a portion of the masses with which previous Sovereigns had more especially endowed the classes. During the reign of the Stuarts religious dissensions and ecclesiastical controversies and intermittent persecutions, illustrated the predominant passion of the period; and forced the weak or indifferent monarch of the moment to be an unconscious factor in the progress towards that general toleration which the Revolution of 1688 and the crowning of William and Mary finally accomplished. But, whether it was Henry persecuting the monks, or Elizabeth the Roman Catholics, or Mary the Protestants, or Cromwell the Episcopalians, or Charles II. the Dissenters, each ruler was being led, to a great degree, by the undercurrent of surrounding bigotry and was, in the main, representative of a strong, popular sentiment of the time. Henry voiced the national uprising against Rome, just as the second Charles embodied popular reaction against the Puritans, and as William of Orange was enabled to lead a successful opposition to the gloomy and personal bigotry of the last of the Royal Stuarts.

The third period of British monarchical history in this connection was that marked by the growth toward constitutional government under the sway of the House of Hanover. Coupled with this was the equally important foundation of a great Colonial empire, and the loss of a large portion of it in the reign of George III. But the development of constitutional rule under the Georges should not be confounded with the growth of the popular and Imperial system which exists to-day. The latter is simply a progressive evolution out of the aristocratic and oligarchical government of the Hanoverian period, just as that system had been a step from the kingly power of the Tudors and the Stuarts, which, in turn, had arisen upon the ruins of feudalism and military monarchical power. It is this gradual growth, this "gently broadening down from precedent to precedent," which makes the British constitution of to-day the more or less perfected result of centuries of experience and struggle. But that result has only been made possible by a peculiar series of national adjustments in which the power of the Monarchs has been modified from time to time to suit the will of the people, while the ability of individual Sovereigns has been at the same time given full scope in which to exercise wise kingcraft or pronounced military skill. It has, in fact, been a most elastic system in its application and to that elasticity has been due its prolonged stability of form under a succession of dynastic or personal changes.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE MONARCHY

It is a common mistake to minimize the importance and value of the aristocratic rule by which the government of England was graded down from the high exercise of royal power under the Tudors and Stuarts to that beneficial exercise of royal influence which marks the opening of the present century period. To the aristocracy of those two centuries is mainly due the fact that the growth from paternal government and personal rule to direct popular administration was a gradual development, through only occasional scenes of storm and stress, instead of involving a succession of revolutions alternating with civil war. Somers and Godolphin, Walpole and Chatham, Pitt and Shelburne, Eldon and Canning, Grey and Liverpool, Wellington and Durham, Melbourne and Palmerston, were all of this aristocratic class, though of varying degrees in rank and title and with varied views of politics. They filled the chief places in the Government of the country during a period when the people were being slowly trained in the perception and practice of constitutional and religious liberty. At the best such processes are difficult and often prove bitter tests of national endurance; and it was well for Great Britain that the two centuries under review produced a class of able and cultured men who—though naturally aristocratic at heart—were upon the whole honestly bent upon furthering the best interests of the masses. And this despite the mistakes of a Danby or a North.

Yet, even towards the close of this period of preparation, popular government, as now practised, was neither understood by the immediate predecessors of Queen Victoria, nor by the nobles who presided over the changing administrations of the day. It was not clearly comprehended by Liberals like Russell and Grey; it was feared by Wellington and the Tories as being republican and revolutionary; it was dreaded by many who could hardly be called Tories and who, in the condition of things then prevalent, could scarcely even be termed Loyalists. Writing in 1812, Charles Knight, the historian, described the fierce national struggle of the previous twenty years with Napoleon and expressed a longing wish for the prop of a sincere and spontaneous loyalty to the throne in the critical times that were to follow. But such a sentiment of loyalty was not then expressed, and could hardly have been publicly evoked by a ruler of the type of George IV., whether governing as Prince-Regent or as King.

There is, however, no doubt of its having existed, and there seems to have been, even through those troubled years, an inborn spirit of loyalty to the Crown as being the symbol of the State and of public order. Its wearer might make mistakes and be personally unpopular, but he represented the nation as a whole and must consequently be respected. This powerful feeling has often in English history made the bravest and strongest submit to slights from their Sovereign, and has won the most disinterested devotion and energetic action from men who have never even seen the Monarch in whose personal character there was sometimes little to evoke or deserve such faith and sacrifice. For ages this loyalty had been the preservative of society in England, and it is still indispensable to the tranquility and permanence of a state, whether given in its full degree to the Sovereign of Great Britain, or in a more divided sense to the elective and partisan head of a modern republic.

In the time of the Georges, as well as in the middle ages and at the present moment, loyalty was and is a sincere and honest patriotism, refining the instincts and elevating the actions of those who were willing to waive self-interest on any given occasion in order to guard what they believed to be the true basis of national stability and order. Certainly, a Monarchy which could survive the wars and European revolutions, the internal discontents and personal deficiencies, of the period which commenced with the reign of George I. and closed with that of William IV., must have possessed some inherent strength greater than may be gathered from many of the superficial works which pass for history. But, whatever that influence was, it does not appear to have been personal. With the close of the reign of Queen Anne the brilliant prestige of personal authority and power wielded by the Sovereign had passed quietly away and, up to the death of William IV. and the accession of Victoria, had not been replaced by the personal influence of a constitutional ruler.

PRESENT POSITION OF THE MONARCHY

Out of all these changing developments has come a military position in which the Sovereign no longer leads his forces in war but in which he commands a sentiment of loyalty as hearty, in the breasts of the Colonial soldiers ten thousand miles away from his home at Windsor, as ever did the personal presence of an Edward I., or a Richard the Lion-Hearted. Out of them has come a religious position in which the Sovereign is head of a particular Church and yet, as such, gives no serious offence to masses of his subjects who belong to other faiths and who receive through his Governments around the world absolute freedom of religious worship—almost as a matter of course. Out of the constitutional evolution has come the adaptation of the Monarchy to not only new conditions but to countries separated by oceans and continents from the mother-state, and the evolution of a system which combines 420,000,000 people under one Crown and one flag. In August, 1884, the Times spoke of a correspondent amongst the Khirgese of Central Asia who stated that the people of that region had not the remotest idea of where or what England was—but they had heard of Queen Victoria; and a few years later Mr. Henry Labouchere, the inconsistent and bitter Radical, told the Forum of New York that "were a Parliamentary candidate to address an electoral meeting on the advantages of a republic he would be deemed a tilter at a windmill."

Such is a summary of the history and position of the British Monarchy. A thousand years ago it combined the seven little Kingdoms of England into one; to-day it combines the Kingdoms and Dominions and Commonwealths and Islands of a quarter of the earth's surface into one. The power of the Crown was once chiefly employed in making war and compelling peace by force of arms and military skill; to-day it is largely utilized in promoting peace and controlling diplomacy. The position of the Monarch was once that of the head of a class, or the leader of some distinct manifestation of public feeling, or the military chief of a great faction; to-day it is that of embodying the power of a united people, giving dignified interpretation to the policy of a nation, and serving as the symbol of unity to the masses of population in an extended empire.

One of the interesting features in the Crown's popularity and influence is the absence of serious criticism or controversy over the expense of its maintenance. Perhaps the only practical expression of disapproval affecting the Monarchy heard during Queen Victoria's long reign was an occasional grumbling as to the paucity of Court functions, the absence of Royal splendour and expenditures from the City of London, the sombreness and quiet which characterized the ordinary, everyday life of the Sovereign. The total financial cost of the Monarchy has been placed at a million pounds sterling per annum, but this total includes various large sums which could just as properly be charged to the ordinary governing requirements of the country without reference to the particular form of its institutions. Against this sum may also be placed the proceeds of the Crown Lands which were surrendered to Parliament upon the accession of William and Mary and which had before that been recognized as a personal estate of the Sovereign over which Parliament had no control. In addition to these Crown Land revenues other sums were voted as required. Upon their surrender to the nation (during the life of each Sovereign) it has become the custom, since 1868, to vote a permanent Civil List for the ensuing reign and out of this sum the ordinary Court and personal expenses are supposed to be met. In the case of Queen Victoria the amount was £385,000 a year, supplemented, however, by other votes and special allowances to herself and the Royal family from time to time.

Upon her accession the Queen retained out of the old Crown Lands, or revenues, those of the Duchy of Lancaster and they have risen in value from £20,000 to £50,000 per annum. The Royal palaces are maintained apart from the Civil List and the building of Royal yachts and other similar expenses are considered as additional items. The revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, which have always pertained to the Prince of Wales, and the incomes or special sums voted to the members of the Royal family, make up an amount nearly as large as the Civil List. But these apparently large sums have not in recent years created any feeling of dissatisfaction; nor has any been expressed save by certain individuals of the Labouchere type, who possess little influence and less sincerity. Upon the whole the situation in this connection possesses considerable interest to the student of history, or of popular sentiment, as showing how a practical, business-loving, money-making people can become devoted to an institution which must in the nature of things be expensive and which, in the ratio of its dignity and effectiveness as an embodiment of growing national power, must be increasingly so as the years roll on.

The reason for this condition of feeling is the combination which the Monarchy has during the past century come to present to the minds of the public. Tradition and history reaching down into the hearts and lives of the people may be considered the basic influence; a general belief in the superiority of British institutions over all others may be stated as a powerful conservative force; while personality and character in the Sovereign may be described as the chief constructive element in this process of increasing loyalty to the Crown. Convenience, custom, love of ceremony, belief in stability and aversion to change, are lesser factors which may be mentioned. The result is that Mr. George W. Smalley, for so many years the American correspondent of the New York Tribune in London, could write recently in the Century the belief of a foreigner and a republican that "England is a very democratic country, but there does not exist in England the vestige of a republican party."

King Edward, therefore, came to the throne of Great Britain and its Empire at a time when the influence of the Sovereign was growing in proportion as the influence and popularity of Parliament appeared to be waning. Fifty years before his accession it was a truism to assert that power in England was being steadily concentrated in the House of Commons; to-day it may be said with equal truth that the position of the Crown is growing steadily in a power which is wielded by personal influence and popularity and which, while it touches no privilege, nor right, nor liberty of Parliament, increases in proportion as the latter body is relegated to the back-ground by public opinion and popular interest. Vast responsibility, therefore, rests to-day in the hands of a British Sovereign and the results for good or ill, depend largely upon his character, his training, his previous career and his present sense of duty. Alarm has even been expressed upon this point by historical theorists such as Professor Beesly and Dr. Goldwin Smith. Certain it is, however, that in the hands of King Edward this growing power was safe. If prolonged experience and acquired statecraft and intimate knowledge of his people can be considered sufficient guarantees for its exercise, it is also safe in the hands of King George.