A ROYAL CONTRIBUTION.
AT the same time that we came across a passage in Mr. H. G. Wells's new book (reviewed elsewhere in this issue) about the influence of the British " Court" on the war and the affairs of the nation, we read that the King had given another £5,000 to the Red Cross Society. What we are about to say may not, we fear, be very pleasing to the Royal family. as it is perfectly obvious from all his proceedings that the King does not care to attract attention as a reward for doing what he conceives to be his duty, though that conception involves a degree of labour and devotion never excelled by any Sovereign. In a word, like the true Englishman he is, he loathes to advertise himself or his doings. On the whole, we think it desirable, however, that this very high service to the country should be fully recognized, in spite of the comparative secrecy with which the King has chosen to do his work. In our opinion, it is best for a democratic nation to be able to estimate the exact value of the services it receives, from whatever source they come. We would not make an exception even in the case of the Hereditary President, so to describe the King, of our crowned republic. We do not pretend to be very punctilious courtiers, and therefore hold ourselves free to say what we think. The passage to which we have referred in Mr. Wells's book does not, as we read it, profess to represent the author's own views. We do not know what those may be. In a sort of oratio obliqua he seems to be summarizing the thoughts of his hero when he writes of an " uninspiring" and " alien " Court. Mr. Britling had his passing moods of mental ferocity, and we dare say we should be only just to Mr. Wells in supposing that these words were intended to represent a wave of exceptional dissatisfaction. But the very fact that such words could be used with what is no doubt intended to be an appearance of credibility suggests to us that the public appreciation of the King's services, though we know it to be great, is not as full and exact as it should be.
It is scarcely worth while to say much about the word " alien." The House of Hanover, even when the Georges could not speak English, was far less alien to the habits and temper of the British people than many of the predecessors who could speak nothing but English. That was why they ruled over us with general consent from the beginning. And could anything, we ask, be more English, or more like what we choose to regard bz English, than the King's habitually modest and unadvertising manner of filling his busy days ? If we had a King who liked advertisement, we might have a Kaiser ; we might have a histrionic personage breathing forth rhetoric and magnifying his office, going behind his Ministers with his words and acts, securing for himself a roaring Press, and un- settling the whole world, which is only too anxious to read mys- terious suggestions into every regal gesture. We are saved from all danger of that kind of " inspiration," and during the present reign shall never suffer from it. As a democratic people, who want their King to be a chairman of the nation's administration, we cannot be too thankful.
Let us estimate some of the King's services in a very matter-of- fact way. Take first His Majesty's donations. These, in pro- portion to his income, have been huge ; though owing to the manner ins which they have been disposed of not nearly enough attention has been called, in our opinion, to what was really a magnificent public example. We are convinced that more public use should have been made of such a model of generosity in the highest place. Possibly in deference to the King's transparent feelings, the public) has been allowed almost to forget the extent of this generosity. But we cannot ourselves think this has been the wisest policy in a nation like ours. The King gave £100,CC0 to his Ministers to be allotted to whatever public use they thought best. When one remembers that the greater part of the King's income is allocated to various uses in advance, we may see the generosity of this gift,. It is more than the free income of the King for a whole year. How many subjects of the King have given anything like so much ? With characteristic dislike to glorify himself, the King allowed his Ministers to do exactly what they wished with the money. We think they would have done well to " make a splash " with it. They might have followed Pitt's example in calling for private donations to beat the enemy, and they could have opened their list with a tremendous /*fame by putting the King's £100,000 at the head of it. As it was, they quietly passed the money into the Treasury, where it has had its value of course, but the full value of cash and not of example. It is not often enough remembered by superficial critics that the King's Civil List does not represent private wealth. As regards freedom to spend money in accordance with purely personal desires, there are several subjects of the King who are very much richer men than the King. To talk of the King's wealth is an ignorant folly like that of the uninformed persons who imagine that Bishops are rich men. Besides this gift of £100,000, the King has given £5,000 to the Prince of. Wales's Fund, and two gifts of £5,000—the last of which is just announced— to the Red Cross Society, as well as, of course, innumerable small donations and subscriptions, both before and during the war.
We pass from the subject of money, which is not the most pleasant to dwell upon. The King's visits of encouragement to his Armies— and not only to great concourses of soldiers, but to unimportant sentry groups such as a Brigadier might be excused for passing by when he had much else to attend to—have been unceasing from the moment that the creation of the New Model was taken in hand. No one else in the land has seen so much of the Armies, and lmows them so intimately, as the King. His A .bllb to the front have been more talked of than the unobtrusive and unending inspections at home. In particular, we have to remember the great fortitude with which the King bore a most painful accident. His refusal to be incapacitated a moment longer than necessary—we believe that His Majesty was actually not on the sick list long enough for safety—was the measure of his ardour for duty. Nor does the King's care stop at the Armies. His visits to the great industrial centres have given him a closer personal knowledge of the industrial
spectacle than is possessed by any one of his Ministers. Before the war, of course, it was already true that His Majesty's personal acquaintance with the Empire surpassed that of any of our statesmen.
Then there is the King's personal knowledge of the sailors, soldiers, and diplomatists, and the officials who bear the highest trusts in his service. His Majesty has always made a point of understand- ing their methods and conversing with them as often as opportunity offers. This is never done in a patronizing manner. Any man holding high office in any Service or Department would confess to the pleasure he has experienced from the quiet kindliness, friendli- ness, and considerateness of the King. A Kaiser may exalt with a smile or depress with a frown, but the King has what is infinitely better—the gentlemanlike power to combine ease with dignity. After all, that is one of the advantages of having an hereditary President. Our Presidents are, so to speak, bred for the purpose, and we should be very foolish to undervaltie the qualities of the breeding when they come out.
The next point we must mention is the King's perfect Consti- tutionalism. His Majesty has passed through troublous times, in the Constitutional controversy, in the Irish imbroglio, and in the war, when passion rose to its highest point. Tho temptation to go behind his Ministers, and to snatch popular favour at their expense, must have been tremendous sometimes. "Remember, I am not responsible for this ! " represents the attitude of many Sovereigns who have called themselves Constitutional. The King never by a hint, a suggestion, a word, or a gesture has taken the stage against his advisers. For one thing, he was far too much of a gentleman to do so ; and for another, ho had the good sense to perceive that, whatever his own opinions might be, interference with Ministers would be the beginning of the end of Constitutionalism. The King's record is unblemished by cynicism or selfishness.
The last instance of the King's characteristic conduct we may mention was his extraordinarily modest act in setting the example of giving up alcohol during the war. He did not fume or prate. He took the course which meant the greatest degree of self-abne- gation and the smallest degree of publics credit. He did not call on Heaven to witness his virtue. He left it to the conscience of his Ministers and his people to do what they thought right. His own act has remained a standing example. That it was not more generally followed was the fault of his Ministers, who did not make the greatest public use of his generous and unselfish act, just as they did not make the greatest public use of his gift of £100,000.
We have mentioned only some of the more obvious reasons for our deep conviction that the King's conduct has been a really great inspiration. It is " English " through and through. The only disadvantage of the King's method is that in these days of publicity it strikes the eye far less than things which are of much less importance. If these reflections help to remind our readers of what the King would willingly allow them to forget, they will serve the only purpose for which they have been written, and we shall bear cheerfully what we fear we shall certainly encounter—the Royal annoyance at impertinent journalists who will not mind their own business and allow him to mind his !
Previous page
