J. Castell Hopkins

The First Year of the New Reign

The first year's reign of a Sovereign must always be important, and when that Sovereign rules over a third of the earth's surface and a quarter of its population, it is more than usually so. King Edward VII., when he came to the Throne, found himself the first of Mohammedan rulers, with more Moslem subjects than the Sultan of Turkey; the first of Brahmin and Parsee Sovereigns; the head of various Confucian colonies and the possessor of the most sacred of Buddhist shrines; the ruler of Christian sects and idolatries of every conceivable kind and variety. Almost every race in the world was included in his Empire—English, Scotch and Irish everywhere, French in the Channel Islands and in Canada, Italians and Greeks in Malta, Arab, Coptic and Turkish subjects in Egypt, Negroes of all descriptions in the Soudan and elsewhere, subjects of infinitely varied Asiatic types in India, Chinese in Hong-Kong and Wei-Hai-Wei, Malays in Borneo and the Malay Peninsula, Polynesians in the Pacific, Red Indians in Canada and Maoris in New Zealand, Dutch, Zulus, Basutos and French Huguenots in South Africa, Eskimos in Northern Canada. The complicated issues involved in such a Government as that of the British Empire, with its curiously non-centralized system, were certainly sufficient to make a Sovereign inheriting the position, the opportunities, and much of the capacity of Queen Victoria, feel that he had, indeed, assumed heavy responsibilities.

His first step had been a most wise one, and in direct line with a policy carried out as Heir Apparent—the cementing of close and cordial relations with the German Emperor during his long and much-discussed visit to the dying Queen and mourning family. To this friendship and the enthusiastic and popular reception given William II. when leaving London on February 5th, 1901, was undoubtedly due the restraining influence held over a part of the press of Germany during the succeeding period of vile abuse of England regarding the South African War. Following this, on February 24th, was the departure of King Edward on a visit to his sister, the Empress Frederick, at Frederichshof, near Cronberg, where he was joined by the Emperor William. The King was accompanied by Sir Frank Lascelles, Ambassador at Berlin, and by his physician, Sir Francis Laking. The Empress was found to be very ill, but not dying, and after a few days her Royal brother and son returned to their respective capitals.

THE KING'S FIRST PARLIAMENT AND DECLARATION

The first Parliament of the new reign was opened by the King in brilliant state and with much dignified ceremonial on February 14th. The pageantry of the occasion was picturesque and splendid. The staircase in Parliament House, up which the Royal pair passed in their progress, was lined with a living hedge of men in blue and silver uniforms, topped with red plumes and shining with the burnished steel accoutrements of the Horse Guards. Before them were stately, robed officials, such as Lord Salisbury and the Duke of Devonshire and some of the brilliant colours of the Court. The King wore a short ermine cape over his Field Marshal's uniform, and beneath the cape a sweeping cloak and train of Royal purple. Queen Alexandra, beautiful always, was more than usually sweet and dignified in her garb of mingled black and purple. In the House of Lords the evidences of mourning for the late Queen were very apparent. The ladies were dressed in black though they were permitted to blaze with jewels. The Peers' robes of red and ermine, gave a little colour to the scene, helped by those of the judges in black and gold, or red and white, and the bright uniforms of the Ambassadors in a distant corner. Hand-in-hand the King and Queen entered the Chamber and took their places upon the chairs of state. The Commons were called in, and their the Lord Chancellor presented and the King repeated and signed the somewhat famous Declaration against the Mass and other Roman doctrines, or observances, as provided by the Bill of Rights. It was as follows:

"I do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever; and that the invocation or adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint and the sacrifice of the mass as they are now used in the Church of Rome are superstitious and idolatrous, and I do solemnly in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do make this Declaration and every part thereof in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this Declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever should dispense with or annull the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning."

The next proceeding was the reading of the King's speech to his Parliament in strong, full tones which impressively and clearly filled the Chamber. This part of the ceremony was rendered unusually interesting, in view of the fact that the King was understood to have had more to do with the wording of his speech than had been customary, and to have changed the conditions by which it had become usual to give an advance summary of its contents to the press. Reference was made to the death of the Queen and to his own accession, to the progress of the South African War, the Chinese troubles, the establishment of the Australian Commonwealth, the sending of additional Contingents from the Colonies to the front, the famine in India, the relief of the Coomassie garrison, and to his intention to carry out the late Sovereign's wish regarding the Imperial tour of the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York. The whole function was of a solemn and impressive and splendid character, in keeping with the traditions of the Crown and in harmony with the known intentions of the King to assume the full ceremonial and dignity of his position. The Times, on the following morning, referred to the enthusiastic reception of the King and Queen as they drove to Westminster and to the inspiring and exhilarating character of the scene in the House of Lords. "The present generation has seen hardly anything, not even excepting the processions of 1887 and 1897, at all comparable in splendour and solemnity with the pageant yesterday at Westminster."

The session of Parliament which followed was closely and continuously associated with subjects arising out of the King's accession. An early and prominent topic was the Declaration taken against Roman Catholicism. Under date of February 20th, Cardinal Vaughan issued a letter to his Diocese declaring that "patriotism and loyalty to the Sovereign are characteristic of the Catholics of this country and are to be counted on, quite independently of passing emotions of pain or pleasure, because they are rooted in a permanent dictate and principle of religion;" that Catholics had, however, been made unhappy by the "recent renewal of the national act of apostacy" in the Sovereign's branding by solemn Declaration their religious doctrines as superstitious and idolatrous; that the Catholic Peers had done well in protesting to the Lord Chancellor against the continued use of this Declaration; that British legislators in all parts of the Empire and the twelve million Catholic subjects of the Crown throughout the world should take further measures of constitutional protest; that the evil so greatly deplored was the result of an anachronism and of a barbaric law which had remained accidentally unrepealed; and that there was reason to hope that "this remnant of a hateful fanaticism" would soon be removed from the statute-book.

In Canada and Australia protests were prepared and presented through the Cardinal—that from the Dominion being signed by all the members of the Hierarchy. In the House of Lords a Committee was appointed, on motion of Lord Salisbury, to deal with the matter although no Catholic Peers would serve upon it. They reported early in July that a modification of the Declaration might be made so as to omit the adjectives and objectionable phraseology without affecting the strength of the pledge itself. A Government measure was prepared along these lines and submitted to the House. It was opposed by Lord Rosebery on August 1st, on the ground that nothing could really bind conscientious convictions, that the King might change his views and not be bound by this Declaration in future, and, that it did not repudiate the temporal or spiritual supremacy of the Pope. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not like the changes, the Duke of Norfolk did not care for the new form and the Roman Catholics generally, in and out of the House, objected to the compromise as useless. The result was that Lord Salisbury eventually withdrew his measure and the matter dropped out of public discussion for the time—although the Canadian House of Commons and other public bodies in the Empire had meanwhile protested against the continued maintenance of the Declaration.

THE KING'S INCOME AND REVENUES

Another duty which faced the early consideration of Parliament was the Civil List. Queen Victoria's Civil List had been £385,000, given as a permanent yearly income for her reign, and in return for the formal surrender of the revenues of the Crown Lands for the same period. In this connection, the Daily News of February 14th, pointed out that the late Sovereign had received during her long reign £24,000,000 from the people while the revenues of the surrendered Crown Lands had totalled £20,000,000. Speaking for the Liberals and Radicals this paper declared that there was "no disposition to deal grudgingly with a Monarch who has fully borne the share that belongs to him in the country's affairs," that it might be well to adhere closely to the late Queen's Civil List, and that the example of "a moderate and sober Court" would be of the highest value to the nation. On March 11th Sir M. E. Hicks-Beach moved the appointment of a House of Commons' Committee to deal with the question, composed of Mr. Balfour, Sir W. Hart Dyke, Sir F. Dixon-Hartland, Sir S. Hoare, Mr. W. L. Jackson, with seven other members and himself, as representatives of the Government party and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Sir William Harcourt, Sir Henry Fowler, Sir James Kitson, Mr. H. Labouchere, and three others, as representing the Opposition. The Times of the following day said that there were two reasons for somewhat increasing the sum to be voted—the fact of the King having a Consort of whom the nation was proud, while Queen Victoria was unmarried at the time of the former vote, and the fact, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it to the House, that the King was now the head of a world-wide Empire.

As finally decided in the Report of the Select Committee the new Civil List was placed at £470,000 for the Sovereign—of which £110,000 was to go to the Privy Purse in place of £60,000 received by Queen Victoria; the Duke of Cornwall and York was to receive £20,000 annually, and the Duchess £10,000—in addition, of course, to the £60,000 coming to the Heir Apparent from the Duchy of Lancaster; the King's children, the Duchess of Fife, Princess Victoria and Princess Charles of Denmark, were each to have £6,000 a year for life; while the contingent annuity of £30,000 provided in the event of Queen Alexandra surviving her husband, was to be increased to £70,000 and a similar contingent grant of £30,000 arranged for the Duchess of Cornwall and York. The only apparent opposition in the Committee to these proposals was from Mr. Labouchere, who suggested certain variations and reductions. There was little influential criticism of the changes proposed—the Daily News, from which opposition might, perhaps have come, speaking of one special increase of £50,000, as follows: "The Queen must have a separate Household if the Monarchy is to be maintained, as most people wish that it should be maintained, in its ancient splendour; and the gracious kindness of Queen Alexandra, who has endeared herself to all the subjects of her husband, will make the tax-payer in her case a cheerful giver."

On May 9th Resolutions based upon these recommendations were presented to the Commons by Sir M. E. Hicks-Beach and eventually carried by three hundred and seven to fifty-eight—the latter being composed of Irish members and Mr. Labouchere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his introductory speech, referred to the Monarchy as "the most popular of all our great institutions" and then proceeded to enlarge upon the situation as follows: "Throughout the Empire there has grown up a feeling, and I think a very right and proper feeling, of the enormous importance of the Crown as the main link of the relations with all the people of which the Empire is composed. Therefore, I think it happened that, in the brief debate in which this subject was dealt with at the commencement of the present Session, there was no sign of any difference of opinion as to the necessity of making a sufficient and adequate provision for the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the Crown." He mentioned the fact that the late Sovereign had bequeathed Balmoral and Osborne House to her successor and that he had to maintain these residences as well as his old-time home at Sandringham; that King Edward had no personal fortune and that the late Queen's savings had been willed to her younger children. He concluded by expressing approval of the proposals as moderate and fair. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, on behalf of the Opposition, declared them to be reasonable and added: "I do not doubt at all that the prevailing desire in this House and in the country is to see that a provision should be made for maintaining that state and dignity of the British Crown which shall fittingly represent the loyal attachment of the people." Mr. J. E. Redmond followed and declared that not only had the Irish members refused to act upon the Committee but they would now vote against the Resolutions because of the unrepealed statute and Declaration regarding Roman Catholicism. Mr. Labouchere spoke against them at length and was joined in speech and vote by two Labour members—Messrs. Keir Hardie and Cremer—who, amidst laughter and interruptions, declared themselves to be republicans and expressed regret that the working classes liked Royalty.

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.

On September 11th His Majesty telegraphed to the American Ambassador at London: "I rejoice to hear the favourable accounts of the President's health. God grant that his life may be spared." After Mr. McKinley's death, three days later, the King immediately cabled the Ambassador: "Most truly do I sympathize with you and the whole American nation in the loss of your distinguished and ever-to-be-regretted President." In his reply Mr. Choate declared that "Your Majesty's constant solicitude and interest in these trying days have deeply touched the hearts of my countrymen." The King ordered a week's mourning at Court and soon afterwards received a message from Mr. Choate voicing Mrs. McKinley's personal gratitude for the sympathy expressed. In replying, the King declared that the Queen and himself "feel most deeply for her in the hour of her great affliction and pray that God may give her strength to bear her heavy cross." On September 27th the American Ambassador was granted a special audience by His Majesty in London and presented the formal thanks of Mrs. McKinley and of the people of the United States for "the constant sympathy which you have manifested through the darkest hours of their distress and bereavement."

During these months the King had not forgotten to show his continued appreciation of many of the interests to which, as Heir Apparent, he had given so much aid. At a General Council meeting of the Prince of Wales' Hospital Fund on May 11th, presided over by the Duke of Fife and attended by Lord Rothschild, Lord Farquhar, Lord Iveagh, Lord Reay, Mr. Sydney Buxton and others the chairman stated that it was held by His Majesty's wish in order to announce his resignation of the Presidency and consent to take the position of Patron. The King's place was to be taken by the Duke of Cornwall and York. Lord Rothschild spoke at some length upon the importance of the work initiated in this connection by the King and of the valuable aid which they had consequently been able to give the hospitals and suffering poor of London. On June 10th a letter was made public, written by Sir Dighton Probyn on behalf of the King, expressing to the Royal Agricultural Society of England his earnest hope that it would succeed in raising the £30,000 which was needed for building purposes, subscribing two hundred and fifty guineas toward this end, and expressing not only His Majesty's interest in its future welfare but his pleasure at having been associated with it during twenty two years of progress. On July 3rd the King and Queen Alexandra, accompanied by Princess Victoria and the Duchess of Argyll, received at Marlborough House some eight hundred nurses belonging to the Training Institute inaugurated by the late Queen. Badges were presented by Her Majesty to a couple of hundred and an address read and graciously answered. An incident typical of the King's courtesy and thoughtfulness was seen in his intimation to the Marquess of Dufferin, who, during the early part of the proceedings was standing bare-headed in the sun, to put on his hat—the King resuming his in order to create the opportunity.

His Majesty took great interest during the year in the proposed National Memorial to his Royal mother. He had early appointed a special Committee of representatives to deal with the preliminaries and, on March 6th, a Report was submitted by Lord Esher, as Hon. Secretary, recommending that a statue of Queen Victoria should be the central feature of such a Memorial, and the location be either the vicinity of Westminster Abbey or that of Buckingham Palace. Accompanied by Mr. Balfour, Mr. Akers-Douglas and Lord Esher, the King visited the suggested sites that afternoon and finally approved a general position near Westminster Abbey. Large amounts were subscribed toward the project during the succeeding months. An interesting incident occurred on July 28th when a small deputation of ladies, including the Countess of Aberdeen, Lady Taylor and others connected with the National Council of Women in Canada, were received at Marlborough House by Queen Alexandra and tendered an address signed by twenty-five thousand women of the Dominion expressive of their earnest loyalty to the King and affection for his Consort. In replying, Her Majesty referred with special pleasure to the tribute paid the late Queen and spoke of the beauty of the volumes in which the address was incorporated.

ROYAL CHARITIES AND VISITS

Toward the end of the year it was announced in the British Medical Journal that a gentleman who did not at present wish his name disclosed—afterwards understood to be Sir Ernest Cassel—had presented the King with a donation of £200,000 for some philanthropic purpose to be selected, and that His Majesty had decided to devote the money to the erection of a Sanatorium in England for Consumptive patients. On January 22nd, 1902, the first Anniversary of Queen Victoria's death, the Times paid the following well-deserved tribute to the new Sovereign: "During the year that has gone by he has sedulously and successfully set himself to fulfill all the duties of a constitutional Sovereign. He has spared no pains to make himself familiar with his people, to study their needs, to discover their wishes, to express their instincts and their ideals. He has been able, in many ways, to promote national objects to a greater extent than, perhaps, would have been possible even with Queen Victoria. It is no secret that he is in cordial sympathy with the feelings of the immense majority of his subjects on the supreme issues which now dominate international politics. He has a high and keen perception of the honour of the nation, so closely bound up with that of the Royal House and with his own."

The succeeding six months were very largely devoted to preparations for the Coronation, but the King, nevertheless, found time to do some travelling and visiting in the country and to carry out some very brilliant Court functions. As an illustration of the way in which he sought to do every possible honour to his Queen-Consort, there may be instanced a letter written, by command, in reply to an inquiry from the Lord Mayor of London as to whether in drinking the second of the loyal toasts at public gatherings the company should stand or not. Sir Dighton Probyn observed in his letter that the King had no doubt as to what was right, and that in his opinion the toast of "Her Majesty, Queen Alexandra, the Prince and Princess of Wales and the other members of the Royal family" should be received standing, with a few bars of the National Anthem and "God bless the Prince of Wales." On February 11th King Edward held the first LevÉe since his accession, and it was made the occasion for a revival of much old-time splendour. The Prince of Wales who had since his return home from the Colonies merged his title of Duke of Cornwall and York in the more historic and familiar designation, was present together with a great and representative gathering. Bishops in lawn sleeves and scarlet hoods attended by chaplains in long black gowns and white bands, great lawyers in wigs and flowing robes, foreign officers and diplomatists in gorgeous and varied uniforms, British generals and admirals, and the picturesque Windsor uniforms of the Privy Councillors, lent a brilliant appearance to a function at which most of the eminent men of the Kingdom were to be seen.

Ten days afterwards His Majesty visited Lord and Lady Burton at Rangemore, and while there inspected the famous Bass and Company brewery and started a special brew to be called "the King's Ale"—only to be used on special occasions. Early in the year it had been decided by the King to pay what might be termed a Coronation visit to Ireland, accompanied by his wife. Unfortunately, unpleasant conditions of local agitation developed, and then came the outburst of Nationalist sympathy for the Boers, in the House of Commons, when Lord Methuen's defeat was announced. The result was that his Ministers advised the King not to undertake the trip at the time proposed, and its postponement was announced on March 12th, greatly to the regret of many in Ireland and out of it. Commencing on March 7th the King and Queen Alexandra paid a brief visit to the West of England and were loyally welcomed at Dartmouth, Plymouth, Stonehouse and Davenport, where certain official functions were performed.

On March 14th, King Edward and Queen Alexandra held their first Court, and it was expected that the occasion would be the most stately and splendid in the modern social history of the nation. It fully equalled these anticipations, and the scene in the ball-room of Buckingham Palace eclipsed even the traditions of the French Imperial Court in the days of Napoleon III. It was well managed, it was attended by the greatest and best representatives of English public and social life, it was unusually brilliant in jewelry, in dresses and in uniforms, it was stately in its setting and more animated and brighter in character than any similar function of the late Sovereign's reign—since its early years at least. The same success attended succeeding and similar occasions, and it might be distinctly appropriate to quote here views expressed by the Daily News of February 15th, 1901, when it spoke of the new reign as opening with splendid promise for the highest interests of the country and with component elements in its Court for a period of extraordinary social brilliancy. "King Edward," observed this Radical organ, "is one of the most popular of Sovereigns, and his beautiful Queen sheds a lustre upon his Court for which it would be difficult to find a parallel. Amiable, tender-hearted, actively philanthropic, and possessing exquisite taste, the Queen Consort is eminently qualified to be the bright particular star in the shining galaxy of our Court. The Royal Princesses are most highly accomplished and amiable ladies, each one of whom has achieved for herself a high place in the affections of the nation."