[Sidenote: As a Social and Moral Force.]
The social and ceremonial duties of the Crown are now its most conspicuous, if not its most important, functions. There can be no question that the influence of the Queen and her court was a powerful element in the movement that raised the moral tone of society during the first half of the last century. But such an influence must vary with the personal character of the monarch. It may be exerted for good or for evil; and it may not be so strong in the future as it has been in the past.
[Sidenote: As a Pageant.]
In its relation to the ma.s.ses royalty may be considered in another aspect. Within a generation there has been a great growth of interest in ceremony and dress. Antiquated customs and costumes have been revived, and matters of this kind are regarded by many people as of prime importance. A kindred result of the same social force has been a marked increase in what Bagehot called the spirit of deference, and what those who dislike it call sn.o.bbishness--a tendency by no means confined to the British Isles. All this has exalted the regard for t.i.tles and offices, and enhanced the attractiveness of those who bear them. In prestige the t.i.tled cla.s.ses have profited thereby, and although their position is less and less dependent upon court favour, the royal family has also profited directly. The presence of some one of its members is sought at ceremonies of all kinds, whether it be the opening of a new building, the inauguration of a charity, or an anniversary celebration at a university. The attendance of the King on such occasions insures an extended report in all the newspapers of the country, and is, therefore, a most effective form of advertis.e.m.e.nt.
[Sidenote: As a Symbol.]
A century or more ago people who had learned nothing from the history of Greece or Rome, and above all of Venice, were wont to a.s.sert that the sentiment of loyalty requires a person for its object. No one would make such a statement now. No one pretends that the English would be less patriotic under a republic; and yet with the strengthening conception of the British Empire, the importance of the Crown as the symbol of imperial unity has been more keenly felt. To most countries the visible symbol of the state is the flag; but curiously enough there is no British national flag. Different banners are used for different purposes; the King himself uses the Royal Standard; ships of war carry at the peak the White Ensign; naval reserve vessels fly the Blue Ensign, and merchantmen the Red Ensign; while the troops march, and Parliament meets, under the Union Jack; and all of these are freely displayed on occasions of public rejoicing. There is a tendency at the moment to speak of the Union Jack as the national flag, but a recent occurrence will ill.u.s.trate how far this is from being justified. A British subject residing at Panama had been in the habit of flying the Red Ensign, until one day he hoisted in its place the Union Jack. Now, according to the regulations the Jack is displayed from the consulates, and the British consul requested his patriotic fellow-citizen not to use it on his private house. The question was finally referred to the British Foreign Office, which in deference to a law of Panama forbidding all private display of alien flags, supported the position of the consul, but refrained from expressing any opinion on the right of an English citizen to hoist the Union Jack in foreign parts.[51:1] Each of the self-governing colonies has, moreover, its own flag, which consists of the Union Jack with some distinctive emblem upon it. One of the first acts of the new Commonwealth of Australia was to adopt a separate flag of this kind. The government held a compet.i.tion in designs, and some thirty thousand were presented. From these one was selected which showed at the same time the connection with the empire and the self-dependence of the commonwealth. It is the Union Jack with a southern cross and a six-pointed star at one end,--a design that seems to have been more shocking to heraldic than to imperialist sensibilities.
The Crown is thus the only visible symbol of the union of the empire, and this has undoubtedly had no inconsiderable effect upon the reverence felt for the throne.
[Sidenote: Popularity of the Monarchy.]
Whatever the utility of the Crown may be at the present time, there is no doubt of its universal popularity. A generation ago, when the Queen, by her seclusion after the death of Prince Albert, neglected the social functions of the court, a number of people began to have serious doubts on the subject. This was while republican ideals of the earlier type still prevailed, and before men had learned that a republic is essentially a form of government, and not necessarily either better or worse than other forms. The small republican group in England thought the monarchy useless and expensive; but people have now learned that republics are not economical, and that the real cost of maintaining the throne is relatively small.[52:1] So that while the benefits derived from the Crown may not be estimated more highly, or admitted more universally than they were at that time, the objections to the monarchy have almost entirely disappeared, and there is no republican sentiment left to-day either in Parliament or the country.
FOOTNOTES:
[27:1] If a person has a claim against the Crown for breach of contract, or because his property is in its possession, he may bring a Pet.i.tion of Right, and the Crown on the advice of the Home Secretary will order the pet.i.tion indorsed "Let right be done," when the case proceeds like an ordinary suit.
[27:2] Anson, II., 4, 5, 42, 43, 278, 279, 476-80. But a servant of the Crown is not liable on its contracts, for he has made no contract personally, and he cannot be compelled to carry out the contracts of the Crown. Gidley _vs._ Lord Palmerston, 3 B. & B., 284. The rule that the sovereign cannot be sued has been held to prevent a possessory action against a person wrongfully in the possession of land as agent of the Crown: Doe. d. Legh. _vs._ Roe., 8 M. & W., 579. It would seem that in such a case the courts might have held that as the King could do no wrong, the wrongful act, and consequently the possession, was not his; in other words, that the agency could not be set up as a defence to the wrongful act. Compare United States _vs._ Lee, 106 U.S., 196, where land had been illegally seized by the government of the United States.
[28:1] c.o.ke, Inst. (4 Ed.), II, 186-87. "Hussey Chief Justice reported, that Sir John Markham said to King E. I. that the King could not arrest any man for suspicion of Treason, or Felony, as any of his Subjects might, because if the King did wrong, the party could not have his Action."
[29:1] Anson, II., 27, 42-54. Dicey, "The Privy Council," 34 _et seq._
[29:2] Dicey, _Ibid._, 40-42.
[30:1] Mahon and Cardwell, "Memoirs by Sir Robert Peel," II., 31.
[30:2] Todd, "Parl. Govt. in England," 2 Ed., I., 266.
[32:1] Pp. 220-26.
[33:1] A description of these cases may be found in Todd, "Parl. Govt.
in the British Colonies," 525-73.
[34:1] Todd, "Parl. Govt. in the British Colonies," 105 _et seq._
[34:2] _Cf._ Morley, "Life of Gladstone," Book II., Ch. vii.
[35:1] Sidney Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 1 Ed., 232-33.
[35:2] Ashley"s "Life of Lord Palmerston," II., 154-57. Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 296.
[35:3] Lee, _Ibid._, 511.
[35:4] Todd, "Parl. Govt. in England," 2 Ed., I., 323 _et seq._
[35:5] Parker, "Sir Robert Peel," II., 391 _et seq._, and Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 97-103.
[36:1] Morley, "Walpole," 158.
[37:1] _The Times_, June 26, 1902.
[38:1] Martin, "Life of the Prince Consort," 4 Ed., I., 74.
[38:2] I., 73.
[38:3] Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 1 Ed., 211-13.
[39:1] Todd, "Parl. Govt. in England," 2 Ed., I., 266, note _y_. Hans., 3 Ser. CCIV., 173, 370.
[39:2] Disraeli"s opponents were right for criticising him for letting it be known that it was the Queen who had decided whether to accept his resignation or to dissolve in 1868: Hans., 3 Ser. CXCI., 1705, 1724, 1742, 1788, 1794, 1800, 1806, 1811. There was no objection to allowing her to decide if he pleased,--that is, he might accept her opinion as his own,--but he ought to have a.s.sumed in public the sole responsibility for the decision.
[39:3] In 1876 Mr. Lowe in a public speech expressed his belief that the Queen had urged previous ministers in vain to procure for her the t.i.tle of Empress of India. The matter was brought to the attention of the House of Commons, and he was forced to make an apology, which was somewhat abject, the Queen through the Prime Minister having denied the truth of his statement: Hans., 3 Ser. CCXXVIII., 2023 _et seq._; and CCXXIX., 52-53.
An apparent, though not a real, exception may be found in the rule which requires that before a bill affecting the prerogative can be introduced into Parliament, notice of the King"s a.s.sent thereto must be given. If the bill affects only the private property of the Crown it is not a political matter. If it affects the public powers of the Crown, then the a.s.sent is given on the responsibility of the ministers.
[40:1] Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 74-75.
[40:2] Parker, "Sir Robert Peel," II., 415 _et seq._
[40:3] English Const., 1 Ed., 103.
[41:1] Gladstone, "Gleanings of Past Years," I., 85.
[41:2] Morley, "Life of Walpole," 155.
[41:3] This was in 1880. Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 451.
[42:1] "Gleanings of Past Years," I., 86, 87.
[42:2] For the same reason the President of the Board of Control objected in 1842, when Lord Ellenborough, the Governor General of India, took upon himself to write directly to the Queen, a proceeding which would undoubtedly not be permitted to-day. Parker, "Life of Sir Robert Peel," II., 591.
In 1885 Lord Randolph Churchill tendered his resignation as Secretary of State for India, because the Prime Minister, without consulting him, had transmitted to the Viceroy a suggestion by the Queen that one of her sons should be appointed to the command of the forces in Bombay. The appointment was not made, and Lord Randolph withdrew his resignation.
Winston Churchill, "Life of Lord Randolph Churchill," I., 503-13.
[43:1] _Cf._ Dicey, "Law of the Const.i.tution," 5 Ed., 392.
[43:2] _Cf._ Parker, "Life of Sir Robert Peel," I., 334.
[44:1] I., 42.
[44:2] Lee, "Life of Queen Victoria," 133, 295, 387, and see page 39, note 2, _supra_.
[45:1] Morley, "Life of Gladstone," II., 267 _et seq._ Davidson and Benham, "Life of Archbishop Tait," 2 Ed., II., 20-27, 35-36, 40-42.